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 >>
CHESNYAK v. UKRAINE - 1809/03 [2010] ECHR 184 (18 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/184.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 184
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF CHESNYAK v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 1809/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
February 2010
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 Chesnyak v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 26 January 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 1809/03) 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 Fedir Fedorovych Chesnyak (“the
applicant”), on 11 November 2002.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On
7 January 2009 the
President of the Fifth 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 FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Zaporizhzhya,
Ukraine.
On
9 March 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the
applicant in connection with several straightforward episodes of
smuggling goods to Ukraine.
In the period from 9 March 1998 to 22 May 1998 criminal
proceedings were instituted against Mrs T., Mrs K. and four other
persons in connection with the same episodes.
On
8 May 1998 the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond.
On
30 July 1998, while undergoing a course of treatment in a hospital,
the applicant was arrested and remained under arrest in the hospital.
On 28 August 1998 the applicant finished his treatment. On the
same date he was placed in custody.
On
11 August 1998 the proceedings against the applicant, Mrs T. and Mrs
K. were joined.
On 7 September 1998 the case was transferred to the
Zaporizhzhya Regional Court
for examination. On 12 May 1999 it sentenced the applicant to five
years and six months’ imprisonment.
On
16 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and
remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Zaporizhzhya
Regional Court on the ground that the latter had failed to examine
all the circumstances of the case. On 16 March 2000 the
Zaporizhzhya Regional Court sentenced the applicant to one year,
seven months and sixteen days’ imprisonment. Since the
applicant had already spent an equivalent time in prison he was
considered to have served his sentence. By the same judgment the
court placed the applicant under an obligation not to abscond. On the
same date the applicant was released.
On
1 June 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 16 March 2000
and remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office for further
investigation.
On
25 December 2000 the further investigation was completed and the case
was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya.
On
15 October 2001 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya sentenced
him to two years’ imprisonment. The applicant was exempted from
serving his sentence under the Amnesty Act. By the same judgment the
court released the applicant from the undertaking not to abscond.
On
10 December 2001 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as
a court of appeal, upheld that judgment.
On
8 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 10 December
2001 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the court of
appeal since the latter had failed to consider the applicant’s
appeal in a due manner.
On
18 December 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed
the judgment of 15 October 2001 and remitted the case for further
investigation to the prosecutor’s office.
On
17 September 2003 the case was transferred to the Leninsky District
Court of Zaporizhzhya.
On 24 September 2003 the Leninsky District Court of
Zaporizhzhya terminated the criminal proceedings against the
applicant since the charges against him had become time-barred. On 16
February 2004 and 17 May 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of
Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld that ruling.
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...”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 9 March 1998 and ended
on 17 May 2005 when the Supreme Court gave a final decision in the
case. Thus the pre-trial investigation and trial at three levels of
jurisdiction had lasted seven years and two months.
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,
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 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.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the
Convention that he had been held in custody despite the fact that he
was suffering from a number of ailments. He further alleged that he
had been deprived of adequate medical treatment while held in custody
and that the conditions of detention had been unsatisfactory. He
complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest and his
detention had been unlawful. He also alleged under the same Article
that his detention had been excessive in length.
The applicant further alleged a violation of Article 6
of the Convention, complaining about the outcome of the criminal
proceedings against him. Finally, he complained that the judges
sitting in the domestic courts had lacked independence and
impartiality.
Having carefully examined the
applicant’s submissions 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 finds that they do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention.
It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible 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.”
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 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 on account of the excessive length of
the proceedings.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 February 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
