CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .s460B86C9 { width:198.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 4902/08 Oleg Vitalyevich GORBATYKH against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2007, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for delays which occurred in the process of the examination of the applicant’s criminal case. In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, the relevant complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the “reasonable time” requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no.   50178/99, ECHR 13/11/2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, ECHR 19/10/2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, ECHR 06/07/2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, ECHR 05/10/2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, ECHR 12/02/2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, ECHR 12/11/2013; Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, ECHR 17/02/2015). In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. B.     Remaining complaints The applicant also raised a number of other complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 4 May 2017.   Karen Reid   Luis López Guerra   Registrar   President APPENDIX Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Level of jurisdiction 4902/08 14/12/2007 Oleg Vitalyevich Gorbatykh 09/06/1965 23/04/2003   18/06/2007   4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction