British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
POLOMOSHNOV v. RUSSIA - 33655/04 [2010] ECHR 1573 (21 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1573.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1573
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF POLOMOSHNOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 33655/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 October
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Polomoshnov v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Dean Spielmann,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 September 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 33655/04) 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 Viktor Vladimirovich
Polomoshnov (“the applicant”), on 9 August 2004.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at
the European Court of Human Rights.
On
26 March 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with
Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee.
It was also decided that the Committee would rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 1 of the Convention).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Biysk of the Altay Region.
On
2 March 1995 the applicant and other individuals were arrested on
suspicion of causing lethal injury to Mr B. They were remanded in
custody.
On
9 June 1995 the case against the applicant, Mr K. and Mr S. was
referred for trial to the Priobskiy District Court of the Altay
Region (“the District Court”).
Before
5 May 1998 when the Convention entered into force in respect of
Russia, trial hearings were adjourned on many occasions for carrying
out a psychiatric examination of Mr S., Mr K.’s illness,
obtaining the attendance of the victim and the witnesses, the legal
counsels’ default in appearance, and the judge’s
involvement in different proceedings. The case was also once remitted
to the prosecutor for further investigation. On 5 December 1997 the
Altay Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) asked the
president of the District Court to take measures to ensure compliance
with the procedural time-limits.
From
25 May to 4 June 1998 the court examined the case at regular
hearings. On the latter date the applicant was released from custody
on an undertaking not to leave the town.
Two
other hearings scheduled in 1998 and 1999 did not take place due to
Mr S.’s representative’s failure to appear and Mr K.’s
illness. In late 1999 the case was handed over to judge D.
By
letter of 22 November 1999, the Regional Court reported to the
applicant’s mother that delays in the examination of the case
were due to a substantial number of pending cases.
On
24 January 2000 the hearing was postponed to 14 August 2000 following
the witnesses’ failure to appear.
On
11 April 2000 the case was remitted to the prosecutor for lack of
competence of the investigative body. Upon return of the case, the
trial court held two hearings in August 2000 and stayed the
proceedings to carry out another psychiatric examination of Mr S.
Once
the proceedings resumed, the next hearing was scheduled for
5 February 2001. However, it did not take place on that date as
the authorities had failed to deliver Mr K., who was serving his
sentence out of town, to the court.
On
22 February 2001 the case was once again remitted to the prosecutor
to remedy certain procedural defects. Upon return of the case, it was
examined at regular hearings from 13 to 20 August 2001.
On
20 August 2001 the District Court handed down conviction by which the
applicant was acquitted.
On
4 October 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment on procedural
grounds and remitted the case for a new trial.
On
2 November 2001 the trial court adjourned the proceedings to carry
out another psychiatric examination of Mr S. citing the significant
period of time that had elapsed since the previous examination and
taking into account new medical data in his respect. Once the
proceedings resumed, two hearings were adjourned due to the failure
to obtain the case file back from the medical institution and the
applicant’s counsel’s default in appearance.
On
17 January 2002 the District Court gave a new judgment by which it
again acquitted the applicant.
On
21 March 2002 the Regional Court set aside the judgment, finding that
the District Court had failed to evaluate several witnesses’
statements. A new hearing was required.
On
22 April 2002 the trial court adjourned the hearing due to Mr K.’s
illness. On 20 May 2002 the case was remitted to the prosecutor for
unspecified reasons.
On
8 August 2002 the court suspended the proceedings pending the
convalescence of Mr S.
On
15 October 2002 the court ordered another psychiatric examination in
respect of Mr S. following a newly established diagnosis. After
resumption of the proceedings, two hearings did not take place due to
the failure to obtain the case file back from the medical institution
and then due to Mr. S.’s illness.
Between
14 and 18 March 2003 the case was examined in regular hearings. On 18
March 2003 the District Court appointed another psychiatric
examination of Mr S. on account of inconsistency of the previous
results and adjourned the proceedings.
The
case was examined between 19 and 25 August 2003. On 27 August
2003 the hearing was adjourned due to the illness of Mr S.’s
representative. On 5 September and 7 October 2003 the case was
remitted to the prosecutor to remedy certain defects in the bill of
indictment.
On
11 December 2003 the District Court found the applicant and his
co-defendants guilty of causing grievous bodily injuries to Mr B. The
applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and taken
into custody.
On
12 February 2004 the Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings
against him had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the
relevant part of 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. Admissibility
The
Government submitted that this complaint should be rejected as
inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention. They did not further elaborate on this argument.
The
Court notes that this complaint does not appear to be 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
Government admitted that the proceedings that had taken place before
23 January 2001 had not met the “reasonable time”
requirement enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention. At the same
time, they contended that the length had been justified by the
objective factors, such as the complexity of the case, multiple
referrals to the prosecutor’s office and orders for Mr S.’
psychiatric examinations, the applicant’s co-defendants’
illnesses and Mr K.’s remote location. They further stated that
the delays had not had an adverse effect on the applicant as he had
not been detained pending trial.
The
applicant maintained his complaints.
The
Court observes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant
lasted from 2 March 1995 to 12 February 2004 spanning the
investigation stage and the judicial proceedings, during which the
courts reviewed the applicant’s case three times at two levels
of jurisdiction. Taking into account that the Convention entered into
force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998, the aggregate length of the
proceedings at issue amounted approximately to five years and nine
months.
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 applicant’s conduct and the conduct of the competent
authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier
and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR
1999-II).
The
Court accepts that the criminal proceedings against the applicant
bore a certain degree of complexity having involved three
co-defendants and a grave criminal charge. However, it cannot accept
that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to
justify the overall length of the proceedings (see, among others,
Antonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 38020/03, 3 November 2005).
Insofar
as the applicant’s behaviour is concerned, the Court does not
discern any delays attributable to him.
Turning
to the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes firstly that in
assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after entry of
the Convention into force in respect of Russia, account must be taken
of the state of proceedings at the time (see Belashev
v. Russia, no. 28617/03, §
68, 4 December 2008). In this respect it recalls that by 5 May 1998
the proceedings had already continued for over three years and their
length had been remarked on by a higher court (see paragraph 7
above).
Regarding
the period after 5 May 1998, the Court observes that a large portion
of the time was taken up by five referrals of the case to the
prosecutor’s office and four psychiatric examinations in
respect of one of the defendants. While the Court is not in a
position to assess the need for such repeated assignments, it recalls
that they were necessitated by the defects and inconsistencies of the
investigative actions, as well as the significant lapse of time that
invalidated their results. The Court also observes that on two
occasions the hearings had to be adjourned due to the failure of the
State medical institution to promptly return the case file to the
trial court, and on one occasion due to the authorities’
failure to deliver the applicant’s detained co-defendant to the
trial. Taking into further account the large intervals between the
sequences of hearings, it considers that the authorities did not
display sufficient promptness and care in dealing with the
applicant’s case.
The
Court takes cognisance of the Government’s admission of the
unreasonable length of the proceedings prior to the first judgment
produced by the trial court but considers that their subsequent
course did not exhibit sufficient expedition capable of remedying
this defect.
Regard
being had to the various delays attributable to the authorities, the
Court considers that the length of the criminal proceedings against
the applicant was in breach of the “reasonable time”
requirement.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention on this account.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his
pre-trial detention, the obligation to remain in town and unlawful
conviction had amounted to inhuman treatment; under Article 6 §
3 (b) that he had not had access to the victim’s medical
records used in the trial; under Articles 7, 17 and 53 that the
witnesses’ testimonies had been forced by the police and that
his conviction had not had a solid evidentiary basis.
Having
regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as this
complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is
no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in
these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 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.”
The
applicant claimed a total amount of 194,397 Russian roubles (app.
4,913 euros) in respect of pecuniary damage. He did not submit any
claim for non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government disputed the claim as irrelevant and ill-founded.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the complaint concerning unreasonable
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 on account of the length of the
proceedings;
Dismisses the applicant’s claim for
pecuniary damage.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Nina Vajić
Deputy Registrar President
