BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SUKHOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 32805/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
June 2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Sukhov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 May 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 32805/03) against the
Russian Federation lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Russian national, Mr Valeriy
Nikolayevich Sukhov (“the applicant”), on 22 September
2003.
- The applicant was
represented by lawyers of the Human Rights Centre
Memorial (Moscow). The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
12 June 2006 the
President of the First Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3).
- The
Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and
merits of the application. Having examined the Government's
objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Sertolovo,
Leningrad Region. He is a former police officer.
- On
21 July 1997, at about 6 p.m., he was arrested in his office in
Irkutsk on suspicion of bribe-taking. According to the applicant, his
office was searched and a service weapon was seized. On the following
day criminal proceedings were instituted against him under Article
290 § 4 of the Russian Criminal Code on a charge of aggravated
bribery. The applicant's detention on remand was authorised.
- Four
days later an investigator interviewed the applicant. According to
the applicant, his counsel was not allowed to attend the interview.
However, the interrogation record indicates that he was assisted by
Mr Ph., counsel, who made a handwritten note in the record demanding
the applicant's release. The applicant further stated that he was not
provided with legal assistance until 22 January 1998. The Government,
relying on records of various investigative steps taken between July
1997 and February 1998, insisted that the applicant had made full use
of his right to legal aid, being assisted by counsel, Mr Sh., and
that he had not made any self-incriminating statements.
- On
22 January 1998 the applicant was released on a written undertaking
not to leave the town. In the same decision an investigator stayed
the criminal proceedings, finding that the applicant's poor health
made it impossible for him to participate actively in the
proceedings. The applicant claimed that he had been in good health at
the time.
- On
2 November 1998 the proceedings were resumed and joined with another
set of criminal proceedings that had been instituted against the
applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of ammunition.
- On
1 March 1999 the proceedings were adjourned, but resumed on 3 March
1999 on the order of a higher-ranking prosecutor. The proceedings
were adjourned again on 2 April 1999 owing to the applicant's alleged
illness. Relying on a certificate issued by the head of Bratsk Town
police station no. 3, the applicant insisted that he had not been
sick, or received any medical treatment and that he had been
performing his duties in the police station during that period. The
Government confirmed that there was no medical evidence warranting
any of the adjournments. The criminal proceedings were resumed on 27
November 2000 on the order of a higher-ranking prosecutor, who found
that the decision to stay the proceedings was unlawful.
- The
pre-trial investigation was closed on 15 March 2001. The applicant
was committed to stand trial before the Irkutsk Regional Court.
- On
24 April 2001 the Regional Court returned the case file to the
prosecution authorities with directions to correct certain procedural
defects. It also made an order for the applicant to be provided with
additional time to study the case-file. The prosecution authorities
remitted the case file to the Regional Court on 7 August 2001.
- On 14 September 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court again
remitted the case file to the prosecution authorities because the
applicant had not been given enough time to study the file.
- The
prosecution appealed against the decision of 14 September 2001. On 8
November 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the
decision and remitted the case to the Irkutsk Regional Court for
examination on the merits.
- On
29 March 2002 the Irkutsk Regional Court returned the case file to
the prosecution authorities after finding that the investigation was
incomplete. Five months later the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation quashed the decision on a prosecution appeal and ordered
the Regional Court to examine the merits of the case.
- After receiving the case file, the Irkutsk Regional
Court listed the first trial hearing for 15 December 2002.
- Of
the six hearings listed between 15 December 2002 and 28 May 2003,
three were adjourned, two to secure the attendance of witnesses and
the other because the applicant's lawyer was ill.
- No hearings were listed between 28 May and 29 October
2003, when the Irkutsk Regional Court remitted the case for
examination by the Irkutsk Regional Court, sitting in Permanent
Session.
- On
11 November 2003 the Irkutsk Regional Court, sitting in Permanent
Session, determined the composition of the bench and commenced the
trial.
- Of
the four hearings listed between 11 November and 26 December 2003
three were postponed because prosecution witnesses failed to attend.
The next hearing listed for 26 January 2004 was adjourned because the
presiding judge was ill.
- The
following hearing was listed for 12 April 2004 but was adjourned
until 1 June 2004 because the applicant's co-defendant was ill.
- Between
1 June and 7 December 2004 the Regional Court scheduled seven
hearings, of which three were adjourned because the applicant or his
lawyer was ill.
- On
7 December 2004 the Regional Court ordered an expert examination and
stayed the proceedings until 22 December 2004.
- Of
the five hearings fixed between 22 December and 10 February 2005,
three were adjourned because the applicant's lawyer was ill and one
to allow the applicant's new counsel to study the case file.
- On
10 February 2005 the Irkutsk Regional Court found the applicant
guilty of bribe-taking and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment,
but relieved him from the penalty owing to the expiration of the
limitation period. In the same decision, the Irkutsk Regional Court
discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant
concerning the unlawful possession of ammunition because the
prosecution had withdrawn the accusations. The judgment was upheld on
appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 21 July
2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable-time” requirement laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Submissions by the parties
- The Government, citing the Prosecutor General's
Office, stated that the applicant's case had been examined by
independent and impartial courts within a reasonable time. They
acknowledged that there had been occasional delays in the proceedings
as a result of “the poor quality of the investigation”
and referred, in particular, to the stays of the proceedings from 22
January to 2 November 1998, 1 to 3 March 1999, 2 April 1999 to 27
November 2000, and 24 April and 7 August 2001. However, they
contended that those delays had not affected the overall duration of
the proceedings. They further submitted that the remaining delays had
been caused by objective reasons: the applicant's and his
representative's illnesses, and other valid grounds.
- The
applicant contested the Government's submissions. He argued from the
outset that the criminal case against him had not been complex as the
domestic courts had merely heard testimony from the victim and eight
witnesses, authorised one expert examination and studied the case
file materials, which mainly comprised records of various
investigative steps. The applicant further accepted that he may have
contributed up to ten weeks to the overall length of the proceedings
in that both he and his lawyer had missed hearings. However, the
remaining period of approximately seven years within the Court's
competence ratione temporis was, in his view, entirely
attributable to the domestic authorities. In particular, he noted the
poor quality of the investigation, the constant toing and froing of
the case between the courts and the prosecution authorities and the
failure of the prosecution witnesses to attend hearings.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began
on 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of
Russia. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that
elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of the
proceedings at the time. The period in question ended on 21 July
2005, when the Supreme Court convicted the applicant. It thus lasted
approximately seven years and three months for two levels of
jurisdiction.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see,
among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
- The
Court notes that the parties did not dispute that the case at issue
was not particularly difficult to determine. It sees no reason to
conclude otherwise. Consequently, it takes the view that an overall
period of more than seven years could not, in itself, be deemed to
satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement in Article 6 §
1 of the Convention.
- As to the applicant's conduct, the parties appear to
be in agreement that he had added ten additional weeks to the overall
length of the proceedings owing to both his own and his lawyer's
failure to attend certain hearings.
Irrespective of the reasons for their absence from those hearings,
the Court finds that the resulting delay was negligible having regard
to the overall length of the proceedings.
- As
regards the conduct of the authorities, there were substantial
periods of inactivity for which the Government have not submitted any
satisfactory explanation and which are attributable to the domestic
authorities. The Court notes the Government's acknowledgement that an
aggregate delay of approximately two and a half years was attributed
to the “poor quality of the investigation”, in
particular, the investigating authorities' arbitrary decisions to
stay the proceedings (see paragraph 27 above). Another delay of over
a year and three months resulted from the transfers of the case
between the Regional Court and the prosecution authorities (see
paragraphs 13-16 above). Nor can the Court overlook the fact that on
29 October 2003, that is almost three years after the trial had
commenced, the Regional Court decided to change the composition of
the bench, which resulted in the trial having to restart (see
paragraph 18 above). In this respect, the Court reiterates that
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on
Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such
a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide cases
within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, Löffler
v. Austria (No. 2), no. 72159/01, § 57, 4 March 2004).
The Court observes that the principle responsibility for the delay
caused by the change in the composition of the Regional Court rests
ultimately with the State (see Sidorenko v. Russia,
no. 4459/03, § 32, 8 March 2007).
- The
Court further notes that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses was
one of the reasons for the prolongation of the proceedings. It
reiterates that the delay occasioned by their failure to attend at
least five hearings and the Regional Court's failure to discipline
them is attributable to the State (see Kuśmierek v.
Poland, no. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004).
- Having
examined all the material before it and taking into account the
overall length of the proceedings and what was at stake for the
applicant, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of
the criminal proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable-time” requirement. There has accordingly been
a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and under Article
6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been
unlawfully arrested in 1997 and detained for several months in poor
conditions, that his office had been searched and his service weapon
seized, that his lawyer had not been allowed to attend the interview
on 25 July 1997 and that he had not been assisted by counsel until
January 1998, that the investigative authorities and the trial court
had committed various procedural violations, misinterpreted the
domestic law and incorrectly assessed the evidence before them and
that he had not been served with certain documents.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within its competence ratione temporis, the
Court finds that the evidence discloses no appearance of a violation
of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its
Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's claims were excessive,
unreasonable and unsubstantiated.
- The
Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress, anxiety and
frustration because of the unreasonable length of the proceedings in
his case, which could not be compensated by a mere finding of a
violation of the Convention. However, the sum claimed by the
applicant is excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis
and taking into account relevant aspects, such as the overall length
of the proceedings and what was at stake for the applicant, the Court
awards him EUR 3,600 under that head, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claims for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and before the Court.
- Accordingly,
the Court does not award anything under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,600
(three thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
