CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 décembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 2 January 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 45916/21 Kristjan OOLO against Estonia and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants’ complaint concerns the length of criminal proceedings. The applicants were accused of causing a company’s insolvency. The criminal proceedings concerning the causing of a certain company’s insolvency started in 2012, and it appears that the applicants learnt about them when the search was conducted in the concerned company’s premises on 20   April 2012. This date was not questioned by the prosecutor’s office or by the domestic courts as the relevant begin date for the purposes of calculating the length of criminal proceedings forming the subject-matter of the present case. The criminal proceedings completed on 9 March 2021. They lasted for approximately eight years and ten months at three levels of jurisdiction. While the applicants were initially convicted by the Harju County Court, they were acquitted – on three separate instances – by the Tallinn Court of Appeal. After examining the appeals on points of law lodged by the prosecutor’s office, the Supreme Court twice quashed appellate court’s judgments and remitted the case to the Tallinn Court of Appeal. The third judgment of the Tallinn Court of Appeal, acquitting the applicants, dated 3 September 2020, became final on 9 March 2021 when the Supreme Court refused to examine the third appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor’s office. The applicants referred to the excessive length of proceedings in their appeals against the initial judgment of the Harju County Court and against the first out of three judgments of the Tallinn Court of Appeal, and asked for the proceedings to be terminated on that ground. The Supreme Court refused to examine their appeal of points of law lodged against the first of the Tallinn Court of Appeal judgments. The applicants did not lodge appeals on points of law against the second and the third judgments of the Tallinn Court of Appeal, although they asked the proceedings to be terminated owing to their excessive length in the response submitted to the appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor’s office against the Tallinn Court of Appeal’s second judgment. The domestic courts found, in a summary manner and without going into details, that the proceedings had not lasted for unreasonably long time. The applicants complain, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the criminal charges against them were not determined within a reasonable time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, in relation to their complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings?   In particular, could the applicants have lodged an appeal on points of law in this respect against the Tallinn Court of Appeal judgment of 3 September 2020, and if yes, on which grounds?   The parties are also invited to comment on the applicants’ possibility to lodge a claim for damages under the Compensation for Damage Caused in Offence Proceedings Act, paying attention to, inter alia , the procedural deadlines for lodging such claims.   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Tempel v. the Czech Republic , no. 44151/12, §§ 87-88, 25 June 2020; Liblik and Others v. Estonia , nos. 173/15 and 5 others, §§ 90-91, 28 May 2019; and Kalēja v. Latvia , no. 22059/08, §§ 36 and 42, 5 October 2017)? The parties are asked to clarify the relevant period to be taken into account for the purposes of assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings against each of the applicants under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular the starting date of the proceedings.   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 45916/21 Oolo v. Estonia 08/09/2021 Kristjan OOLO 1986 Tartu Estonian Andrei SVIŠTŠ 2. 46402/21 Kilk v. Estonia 08/09/2021 Kaie KILK 1969 Tallinn Estonian Tarmo PETERSON 3. 47701/21 Kilk v. Estonia 08/09/2021 Rein KILK 1953 Tallinn Estonian Tarmo PETERSON 4. 49607/21 Raig v. Estonia 08/09/2021 Neeme RAIG 1936 Kambja Estonian Andrei SVIŠTŠ