CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 décembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7D9000BB { width:17.92pt; display:inline-block } .sE896C043 { width:180.96pt; display:inline-block } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF SIZYKH v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 25914/06)                       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   21 December 2010     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sizykh v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a   Committee composed of:   Rait Maruste, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 November 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 25914/06) 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 Mikhail Vasilyevich Sizykh (“the applicant”), on 25   May 2006. 2.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     On 12 January 2010 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was assigned to a   Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1962. He currently serves a prison sentence in the Mykolayiv Region. 5.     On 12 October 1998 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of extortion. 6.     On 28 December 1999, following the completion of the pre-trial investigations, the case was referred to the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol, which on 4 May 2000 remitted the case for additional investigations. 7.     On 14 September 2000, following the completion of the additional investigations, the case was referred to the same court. 8.     Following three reconsiderations of the case by the courts of first and appeal instances, on 2   February 2005 the Tsentralnyy Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment with confiscation of property. 9.     On 29   March 2005 and 28 February 2006 respectively the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment. 10.     According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings against the applicant the investigators also brought charges against five other persons (in respect of three of them the criminal proceedings were subsequently discontinued) and questioned eighty-seven witnesses and four aggrieved parties. During the trial the courts had to hear three co-defendants, forty witnesses and several aggrieved parties, which took them about four months. One forensic examination was carried out between 26   May and 18   July 2000. Twenty hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses', aggrieved parties' or co-defendants' failure to appear or illness of a judge. THE LAW I.     SCOPE OF THE CASE 11.     Following the Court's partial admissibility decision of 12   January   2010, the applicant made further submissions, in which he reiterated the complaints he had raised when lodging the application. 12.     In its partial admissibility decision,   the Court adjourned the examination of the applicant's complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. Furthermore, it declared the remaining complaints inadmissible. Therefore, the scope of the case before the Court is now limited to the length-of-proceedings complaint. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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...” 14.     The Government contested that argument stating, in particular, that the case had been complicated by the number of persons participating in the proceedings. 15.     The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 12 October 1998 and ended on 28 February 2006. The proceedings thus lasted for about seven years, four months and nineteen days before the courts of three judicial levels. A.     Admissibility 16.     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 17.     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). 18.     Turning to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court notes that, although the case might have been somewhat complicated by the number of persons involved in the proceedings, those persons were heard by the domestic courts within a relatively short period of time (see paragraph 10 above). It therefore considers that the complexity of the case alone cannot explain the overall duration of the proceedings. As to the conduct of the applicant, the Court sees no substantial delays for which he could be held responsible. On the other hand, the Court is of the view that the proceedings were delayed mainly because of the repeated reconsiderations of the case by the courts (see paragraph 8 above). It concludes, therefore, that the main responsibility for the protracted length of the proceedings rested with the domestic authorities. 19.     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). 20.     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. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 21.     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.” 22.     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 1.     Declares the remainder of the application admissible;   2.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Stephen Phillips   Rait Maruste   Deputy Registrar   President