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]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF SIZYKH v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 25914/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sizykh v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 25914/06) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Ukrainian
national, Mr Mikhail Vasilyevich Sizykh (“the applicant”),
on 25 May 2006.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
12 January 2010 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint about the length of the criminal
proceedings against the applicant to the Government. In accordance
with Protocol No. 14, the application was assigned to a Committee
of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1962. He currently serves
a prison sentence in the Mykolayiv Region.
- On
12 October 1998 the police instituted criminal proceedings against
the applicant on suspicion of extortion.
- On
28 December 1999, following the completion of the pre-trial
investigations, the case was referred to the Tsentralnyy District
Court of Simferopol, which on 4 May 2000 remitted the case for
additional investigations.
- On
14 September 2000, following the completion of the additional
investigations, the case was referred to the same court.
- Following
three reconsiderations of the case by the courts of first and appeal
instances, on 2 February 2005 the Tsentralnyy Court found the
applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years'
imprisonment with confiscation of property.
- On
29 March 2005 and 28 February 2006 respectively the Crimea
Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above
judgment.
- According
to the Government, in the course of the proceedings against the
applicant the investigators also brought charges against five other
persons (in respect of three of them the criminal proceedings were
subsequently discontinued) and questioned eighty-seven witnesses and
four aggrieved parties. During the trial the courts had to hear three
co-defendants, forty witnesses and several aggrieved parties, which
took them about four months. One forensic examination was carried out
between 26 May and 18 July 2000. Twenty hearings were
adjourned due to the witnesses', aggrieved parties' or co-defendants'
failure to appear or illness of a judge.
THE LAW
I. SCOPE OF THE CASE
- Following
the Court's partial admissibility decision of 12 January 2010,
the applicant made further submissions, in which he reiterated the
complaints he had raised when lodging the application.
- In its partial admissibility decision, the Court
adjourned the examination of the applicant's complaint about the
length of the criminal proceedings against him. Furthermore, it
declared the remaining complaints inadmissible. Therefore, the scope
of the case before the Court is now limited to the
length-of-proceedings complaint.
II. 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...”
- The
Government contested that argument stating, in particular, that the
case had been complicated by the number of persons participating in
the proceedings.
- The
Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on
12 October 1998 and ended on 28 February 2006. The proceedings thus
lasted for about seven years, four months and nineteen days before
the courts of three judicial levels.
A. Admissibility
- 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.
B. 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,
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).
- Turning
to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court notes that,
although the case might have been somewhat complicated by the number
of persons involved in the proceedings, those persons were heard by
the domestic courts within a relatively short period of time (see
paragraph 10 above). It therefore considers that the complexity of
the case alone cannot explain the overall duration of the
proceedings. As to the conduct of the applicant, the Court sees no
substantial delays for which he could be held responsible. On the
other hand, the Court is of the view that the proceedings were
delayed mainly because of the repeated reconsiderations of the case
by the courts (see paragraph 8 above). It concludes, therefore, that
the main responsibility for the protracted length of the proceedings
rested with the domestic authorities.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
