CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2023

.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 } Published on 20 February 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 60964/21 Roman MIRONIUK against Lithuania lodged on 28 November 2021 communicated on 30 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of criminal proceedings. On 14 July 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several crimes, including murder and various crimes against property, committed while acting in an organised group. By a final decision taken on 16 November 2017 he was convicted and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. He asked the courts to reduce his penalty because of the lengthy duration of the criminal proceedings, but the courts refused his request. They found that the proceedings had been conducted without unjustified delays and that their duration had been caused by objective reasons, including the absence of the co-accused and their lawyers, illness of one judge and the judges’ holidays or scheduling conflicts. In 2020 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State, requesting compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the lengthy duration of criminal proceedings (eight years and four months), but his complaint was dismissed. The first-instance court held that the criminal case had been complex and of a large scale; the authorities had been sufficiently active; and any delays had been caused by objective reasons, such as the absence of other co-accused, lawyers’ scheduling conflicts or judges’ holidays, as well as the numerous requests and complaints lodged by the applicant and other co-accused. The appellate court upheld that decision, further noting that the absence of unjustified delays had already been established in the decisions of the criminal courts, decisions which had a res judicata effect and could no longer be questioned. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, which domestic decision should be considered as the “final decision” within the meaning of Article   35   §   1 in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings (see O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 109, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and compare Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), nos.   66365/09 and 5 others, §§   86-88, 15   October 2013)?   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, among many other authorities, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §   186, 22   May 2012, and the cases cited therein)?