CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 62741/00 by Ramūnas GADLIAUSKAS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 October 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 2000, Having regard to the parties’ observations on the admissibility of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ramūnas Gadliauskas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Šiauliai.   On 8 October 1996 the applicant was arrested in the context of criminal proceedings for blackmail instituted on the same day. He was released on bail on 11 October 1996. On 28 October 1997 the Šiauliai Regional Court convicted the applicant of blackmail, sentencing him to 5 years and six months’ imprisonment. He was detained on the same day. On 28 January 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment, returning the case for a fresh trial at first instance. On 28 April 1998 the Regional Court returned the case to the prosecutors for further investigation to be carried out. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court subsequently rejected the prosecutors’ appeals against the decision of 28 April 1998.    On 26 November 1998 the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant’s release on bail. On 28 December 1998 an investigator dismissed the applicant’s request to discontinue the case. On the same date the case was referred to a trial court. On 20 September 1999 the Regional Court again returned the case for further investigation to be carried out. On 15 December 1999 the Court of Appeal rejected the prosecutors’ appeal against that decision.     On 24 March 2000 an investigator charged the applicant with blackmail. On 30 March 2000 she dismissed the applicant’s request to discontinue the proceedings, referring the case to a trial court. The bill of indictment was prepared on 6 April 2000. On 2 November 2000 the Regional Court again returned the case for further investigation to be carried out. On 11 July 2001 the Regional Court discontinued the case “in view of the absence of elements of crime” in the applicant’s actions. On 19 September 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutors’ appeal, quashing the decision of 11 July 2001 and returning the case for a fresh trial at first instance. On 7 November 2001 the Regional Court returned the case for further investigation to be carried out. It appears that to date the investigation has not been completed and trial has not recommenced. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings which are pending since 1996. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation. The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President