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]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
1706/06
Oļegs STROGANOVS
against Latvia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
24 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ján
Šikuta,
President,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2005,
Having
regard to the comments submitted by the Latvian Government,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mr Oļegs Stroganovs, is a Latvian national who was
born in 1981 and lives in Daugavpils. The Latvian Government (“the
Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The circumstances of the case
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- From
26 August 2003 to 26 January 2005 the applicant served a prison
sentence in the Daugavgrīva prison after a conviction.
1. The first set of criminal proceedings
(a) Pre-trial proceedings
- On
3 October 2003 the applicant was informed of the charges of
hooliganism brought against him and other co-defendants in the
criminal proceedings which had been launched on 15 April 2003.
- On
5 January 2004 the criminal case was forwarded to the Ludza
District Court.
- Soon
afterwards another set of criminal proceedings was instituted in
which the applicant was charged of theft and on 16 November 2005 both
criminal cases were joined.
-
Meanwhile, on 16 June 2005 the judge J. of the Ludza
District Court detained the applicant on remand. The applicant did
not appeal against the decision.
- On
5 June 2006 the Ludza District Court changed the preventive
measure to police surveillance. The appeal against the decision was
left without review as it had been submitted outside the statutory
time-limit.
(b) Trial
- The
lower court scheduled twenty-four hearings with an average interval
of three months. Twenty-two times the hearings were postponed owing
to the applicant’s or the co-defendants requests. On 27 May
2008 the criminal case was referred for adjudication to another court
of first instance, the Rēzekne Court, which on 17 June 2009
found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to two years’
imprisonment.
- In
his appeal the applicant inter alia invoked the unreasonable
length of the criminal proceedings. On 8 December 2009 the Latgale
Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. With respect
to the applicant’s argument about the breach of the reasonable
length requirement the appellate court referred to all the hearings
which had been scheduled with reasonable intervals and noted that
they had been postponed owing to the conduct of the applicant and the
co-accused.
- On 17 January 2010 the applicant submitted
an appeal of points of law arguing mainly against the classification
of the offence. With respect to his complaint about the length of the
proceedings he made the following statement:
“I wish to bring the attention to the Court of
Cassation to my mistake. The appellate court rightly observed and
recognised that there had been no violation of the reasonable time
requirement. Examining the findings of the appellate court and
assessing the circumstances I fully acknowledge that I had erred in
alleging that there had been a violation of the reasonable time
requirement”.
- On
18 February 2010 the Senate of the Supreme Court refused to grant the
applicant leave to appeal on points of law.
2. The second set of criminal proceedings
- On
28 December 2006 the applicant was detained on remand on
suspicion of murder.
- On
31 October 2008 the Ludza District Court changed the preventive
measure by applying police surveillance to the applicant.
- On
14 April 2009 the Ludza District Court as a lower court convicted the
applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years’
imprisonment.
- On
21 December 2009 the Senate of the Supreme Court partly set aside the
judgment adopted by the appellate court and remitted the criminal
case to the lower court, which on 14 April 2010 adopted a judgment.
The final judgment was adopted on 25 January 2011.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of
the excessive length of the first set of criminal proceedings.
- He
further brought numerous complaints under various other Articles of
the Convention concerning the criminal proceedings brought against
him.
THE LAW
A. Complaint concerning the length of criminal
proceedings
- On
2 March 2009 the applicant complained that the length of
the first set of criminal proceedings had been incompatible with the
“reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 §
1 of the Convention, which reads as follows in its relevant parts:
“In the determination of ...civil rights and
obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is
entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...
tribunal...”
- The
Government argued that following the withdrawal of the same
complaint made before the domestic courts the applicant had lost his
status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention.
- The
applicant failed to make any comment in this respect.
- The
Court’s case-law shows that it will examine events that
have occurred subsequent to the lodging of an application with a view
to determining whether the case should be struck out of its list on
one or more of the grounds set out in Article 37 of the Convention,
notwithstanding the fact that the applicant can still claim “victim”
status (El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands
(striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 28, 20 December
2007).
- Indeed,
in the instant case, the Court does not consider it necessary to
reach a conclusion on the question whether the applicant can still
claim to be “victim” of a violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention in respect of the length of the first set of
criminal proceedings brought against him. The Court observes that
after having lodged this complaint, the applicant withdrew an
identical complaint made before the domestic authorities and
unequivocally recognised that there had been no violation of the
reasonable time requirement (see paragraph 11, above). The applicant
has failed to specify whether in the light of these new developments
before the national courts he still wished to maintain this part of
the application.
- In
the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special
circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the
Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer
justified to continue the examination of this part of the application
within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
- In
view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the
complaint out of the list.
B. Other complaints
- The
applicant alleged violations under various other Articles of the
Convention.
- In
the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the
matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers
that the remainder of the application does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of any of the above Articles of the
Convention. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible under
Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the
Convention
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike out of its list of cases the complaint of
the length of criminal proceedings in accordance with Article
37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta
Deputy
Registrar President
