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 >>
ALEKSEY BUGAYEV v. UKRAINE - 7516/03 [2010] ECHR 484 (8 April 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/484.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 484
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF ALEKSEY BUGAYEV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 7516/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 April 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 Aleksey Bugayev v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Rait Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova
Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 March 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 7516/03) 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 Aleksey Yuryevich Bugayev (“the
applicant”), on 18 February 2003.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On
22 October 2008 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 1975
and is currently serving his sentence in Makeyevka.
5. On 16 September 1997 the
applicant confessed to the murder of Mrs R. On 17 September 1997
he was arrested. On the same day he was questioned. The applicant was
remanded in custody.
On 18 September 1997 he was charged with the murder.
On 10 December 1997 the pre-trial investigation was
terminated and the case was assigned to the Novoazovsky Court for
consideration.
On 22 July 1998 the Novoazovsky Court convicted the
applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years'
imprisonment.
On 25 August 1998 that judgment was quashed by the
Donetsk Regional Court,
which remitted the case for additional pre-trial examination.
On 21 November 1998 the pre-trial investigation was
completed and the case was sent to the court.
On 31 December 1999 the Novoazovsky Court convicted
the applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years'
imprisonment.
On 13 June 2000 that judgment was quashed by the
Donetsk Regional Court. The case was remitted for additional
pre-trial investigation.
On 18 August 2000 the pre-trial investigation was
completed.
On 15 May 2001 the Novoazovsky Court convicted the
applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years'
imprisonment.
On 20 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of
Appeal (“the court of appeal”) quashed the judgment and
ordered additional pre-trial investigation. By the same ruling the
court of appeal lifted the preventive measure of detention pending
trial. The applicant gave an undertaking not to abscond and was
released.
On 4 July 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of
20 November 2001 and remitted the case to the court of appeal
for fresh consideration.
On 19 November 2002 the court of appeal dismissed the
applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 15 May 2001. The
applicant was then arrested.
On 20 November 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the
ruling of 19 November 2002 and the judgment of 15 May 2001.
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. The
Court will examine his complaint under Article 6 § 1 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.
21. The period to be taken into consideration in the present case
began on 16 September 1997 and ended on 20 November 2003 when the
Supreme Court gave the final decision in the case. The proceedings
thus lasted six years and two months for pre-trial investigation and
three levels of jurisdiction.
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.
Merits
The Government submitted that the applicant's criminal
case had been complex. According to the Government, the applicant had
been responsible for several delays, in particular by making demands
for expert evidence and by lodging various petitions and appealing
against the judgment to the higher courts. The Government submitted
finally that the witnesses had also contributed to the length of
proceedings since they had failed to appear on several occasions.
The
applicant made no observations within the time-limit allocated by the
Court.
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). What is at stake for the applicant must also
be taken into consideration. In this respect the Court observes that
the applicant was kept in custody until 20
November 2001 – a fact which required particular
diligence on the part of the authorities and courts dealing with the
case as regards the prompt administering of justice (see Abdoella
v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 24, Series A
no. 248-A).
As regards the complexity of the case, the Court notes
that the proceedings at issue concerned one count of murder and
required that several witnesses be questioned, forensic examinations
be carried out and a reconstruction of events be conducted. There was
one accused in this case. Therefore it cannot be said that the
proceedings were so complex as to justify their length.
The Court notes that the
complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct cannot explain the
overall length of the proceedings at issue. It finds that a number of
delays (in particular, the remittals of the case) are attributable to
the respondent State.
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 that he had been beaten and
forced to plead guilty. He further complained, under Article 5 of the
Convention, of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention
during the judicial proceedings. Relying on Article 5 of the
Convention he alleged that he had been put into prison without being
told of the charge against him.
The
applicant further alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention,
complaining that he had had inadequate time and facilities for
preparing his defence; that he had not been provided with a lawyer;
and that the domestic courts had failed to summon some defence
witnesses.
Referring
to Article 13 of the Convention, he complained that the trial had
been unfair, that he had not been provided with a lawyer when first
questioned, and that he had been tortured and then refused a medical
examination. He also invoked Articles 7 and 17 of the Convention and
Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, referring to the facts of the case.
In
his submissions lodged in June 2009 the applicant complained about
the conditions of his detention while in custody. He did not invoke
any Article of the Convention or Protocols thereto.
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.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 10,500 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage.
He further claimed EUR 445,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In
addition, he claimed EUR 350,000 without specifying under which head
this claim was lodged.
The
Government contested these claims.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant
EUR 600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant made no claim for costs and expenses. Therefore, the Court
makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1
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;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of
the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 600 (six
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of
the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of
settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 April 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
