(Application no. 36024/03)
15 October 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 Nichitaylov v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 September 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
2. Civil proceedings for compensation
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
Code of Criminal Procedure
Grounds and procedure for suspension of proceedings
“Pre-trial investigation in a criminal case shall be suspended:
2) when a psychiatric or other serious illness of the accused prevents completion of the proceedings in the case;...”
I. LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
In so far as the applicant complained of a violation of his right to a defence and that there had been a failure to ensure he understood the charges against him, it should be noted that the domestic courts acknowledged these procedural violations and referred the case for an additional investigation for this very reason. Therefore, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim with respect to this complaint. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ponomaryov v. Ukraine, no. 3236/03, § 55, 3 April 2008, not yet final).
The Court has examined the remainder of these complaints of the applicant as submitted by him. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“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.”
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 October 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer