BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF RODIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 5511/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 October
2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Rodin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 5511/05) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Oleg Viktorovich Rodin
(“the applicant”), on 19 January 2005.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially
represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and
subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that the length of the criminal
proceedings in his case exceeded the “reasonable time”
requirement.
- On
28 June 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.
- On
5 February 1997 the Uglegorsk Town Prosecutor's Office opened
criminal proceedings against the applicant on charge of manslaughter.
On the same day the applicant was detained and placed in custody. His
detention pending investigation and trial was authorised on
8 February 1997.
- On
6 July 1997 the investigation was completed and the case was
transferred to the Uglegorsk Town Court. The applicant was charged
with manslaughter, infliction of bodily harm and dangerous and
disorderly conduct. The judges' dockets were full and the trial was
scheduled for 9 February 1998. The hearing was subsequently
adjourned until 16 April 1998 due to the judge's conflict of
schedule.
- On
20 April 1998 the Town Court found that the investigation
conducted by the prosecutor's office was incomplete and sent the file
back. On 10 June 1998 the Sakhalin Regional Court dismissed the
prosecutor's appeal against the Town Court's decision. The applicant
was to remain in custody pending investigation.
- On
8 July 1998 the case file was forwarded to the Uglegorsk Town
Prosecutor's office for additional investigation.
- On
10 August 1998 the prosecutor's office closed the investigation
and forwarded the case file to the court. Upon receipt and review of
the file, the Town Court found that the investigation had not been
duly completed and transferred the file back to the prosecutor's
office. The prosecutor unsuccessfully appealed. The final decision on
the matter was taken by the Regional Court on 18 November 1998.
- The
Town Court resumed the trial on 1 February 1999. On 13 April
1999 the Uglegorsk Town Court of the Sakhalin Region found the
applicant guilty of manslaughter and infliction of bodily harm and
acquitted him of the charge of dangerous and disorderly conduct. He
was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
- On
28 July 1999 the Sakhalin Regional Court affirmed the applicant's
acquittal of dangerous and disorderly conduct, quashed the remainder
of the judgment of 13 April 1999 and remanded the matter for
fresh consideration. The applicant remained in custody.
- On
17 August 1999 the applicant was taken to hospital where he
underwent treatment for tuberculosis. The trial was suspended until
the applicant's release from hospital in December 1999.
- On
28 December 1999 the applicant was released on bail.
- The
applicant's case was assigned to judge Sh. On 5 December 2001
she was transferred to another court and the case was allocated to
judge Ya. who could not proceed with the trial since his judge status
was terminated. On 31 March 2003 the applicant's case was taken
over by judge R.
- The
new trial began on 14 April 2004. According to the Government, the
applicant refused to have the proceedings discontinued due to the
expiration of the prescribed period for prosecuting him. By a
judgment of 7 May 2004, the Town Court reclassified the charges
brought against the applicant and found him guilty of two counts of
infliction of bodily harm and sentenced him to three years'
imprisonment. The court found however that the applicant was no
longer liable to serve the sentence and exempted him from doing so.
- On
21 July 2004 the Sakhalin Regional Court quashed the conviction,
acquitted the applicant of one charge of infliction of bodily harm
and discontinued the criminal proceedings against him in respect of
the second charge because the prescribed period for prosecuting him
had expired.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had
been excessively long, in contravention of Article 6 of the
Convention, which reads, is so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
- 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
1. The period under consideration
- The
Court notes that the applicant was arrested on 5 February 1997.
However, the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes
of the present case began only on 5 May 1998, when the Convention
entered into force in respect of Russia. In assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account
must, nevertheless, be taken of the state of the proceedings at that
time. The period in question ended on 21 July 2004, when the
Regional Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the
applicant. It had lasted, accordingly, a total of seven years and
five and a half months, of which six years and two and a half months
fall within the Court's jurisdiction. During that period the case was
examined twice at two levels of jurisdiction.
2. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings
- The
Government submitted that the overall length of the proceedings had
been reasonable. They conceded that the domestic judicial authorities
had been responsible for a delay in the proceedings between
5 December 2001 and 31 March 2003 owing to the insufficient
number of judges in the Sakhalin Region at the time. However, they
considered that this fact alone did not infringe upon the applicant's
rights given that the latter was at liberty while awaiting trial.
Lastly, they noted that once the prescribed period had expired and
the proceedings could have been discontinued, it was the applicant
who insisted on their continuation.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of the
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
and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 II). In addition,
only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a
failure to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement
(see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, §
49, ECHR 2004-XI).
- The
Court considers that the proceedings at issue were of a certain
complexity owing to the gravity and the number of the offences the
applicant was charged with. However, the Court finds that the
complexity of the case, on its own, cannot justify the overall length
of the proceedings.
- The
Court further notes that, apart from the adjournment of the
proceedings for four months in 1999 due to the applicant's illness,
the applicant himself did not contribute to the length of the
proceedings, and that in any event that delay cannot be considered
significant.
- As
regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court observes that in
1998 the trial court remitted the matter twice to the prosecutor's
office for further investigation, and the proceedings were resumed
only on 1 February 1999. The Court considers that the resulting
delay of approximately nine months is imputable to the domestic
authorities, and that they failed to complete the investigation
promptly.
- The
Court further notes that the domestic courts examined the case twice
at two levels of jurisdiction. However, the fact that the courts
heard the case several times did not absolve them from the obligation
to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 (see Litoselitis v. Greece,
no. 62771/00, § 32, 5 February 2004).
- The
Court further observes that a delay of approximately four years and
four months occurred from the date of the quashing of the first
instance judgment on 28 July 1999 and the commencement of the
retrial on 14 April 2004. The Government partially accounted for
the delay, submitting that between 5 December 2001 and 31 March
2003 the number of judges assigned to the Town Court had been
insufficient. In this regard the Court reiterates that it is for
Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that
their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final
decision within a reasonable time (see, for instance, Löffler
v. Austria, no. 30546/96, § 21, 3 October 2000).
Therefore, the delays resulting from the understaffing of the Town
Court are imputable to the State. Furthermore, the Government's
explanation accounted only in part for the four-year interruption in
the proceedings. They did not furnish any explanation as to the
two-year and one-year periods of the trial court's inactivity which
occurred between December 1999 and December 2001 and between 31 March
2003 and 14 April 2004 respectively.
- Lastly,
the Court observes that almost one year and eight months of the
applicant's detention extended into the post-ratification period, and
that that fact required particular diligence on the part of the
domestic courts to ensure that justice was administered expeditiously
(see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132,
ECHR 2002-VI). However, they failed to comply with that obligation.
The Court also notes that by the date of entry into force of the
Convention in respect of the Russian Federation, the proceedings
against the applicant had already been pending for one year and three
months.
- In
the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law and having regard
to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that in the
instant case the length of the criminal proceedings against the
applicant was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of
Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in
1997-1999 had been appalling, his detention had been unlawful and the
criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. He referred to
Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention.
- However,
having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as
these complaints fall within its competence ratione temporis,
the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the
rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It
follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4
of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's allegations should not give
rise to an award of any compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In any
event, they considered the applicant's claim excessive and that the
finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have suffered non-pecuniary
damage as a result of the excessive length of the criminal
proceedings against him, and that this would not be adequately
compensated by the finding of a violation alone. However, the amount
claimed by the applicant appears to be excessive. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 4,200 under that
head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the length of
the criminal proceedings against the applicant admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the
unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against the
applicant;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,200 (four
thousand and two hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian
roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
