CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 47807/06 Vasiliy Petrovich SAVELYUK against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   September 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2006, Having regard to the observation submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details, and the relevant facts of the application, are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms Kadyrova, residing in Moscow. The applicant’s complaints 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 other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) The applicant complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. The Government submitted that the complaint was raised belatedly. Alternatively, they argued that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. The Court does not consider it necessary to examine the Government’s argument of six month, as it in any event finds the applicant’s complaint inadmissible. 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 cases. In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, approximately 5 years and 11 months, the relevant complexity of the case, the number of defendants involved, the special judicial status of the defendants, including the applicant, the applicant’s conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the case, 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, 13 November 2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, 19   October 2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, 6 July 2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, 5 October 2006; Kupreyanov v.   Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, 12 February 2009; Lyakhevich v.   Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013; and Burmistrova v.   Russia (dec.), no.   887/06, 17 February 2015). In view of the above, the Court finds that this 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 other complaints under Article 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 matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do 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   October 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction     47807/06 10/11/2006 Vasiliy Petrovich Savelyuk 14/01/1963 Kadyrova Irina Timurovna Moscow 07/06/2000   12/05/2006   5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 6 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction