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 £1, 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 BAKHITOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 4026/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 December 2008
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 Bakhitov 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,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 November 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an
application (no. 4026/03) 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 Nikolay
Khayrullovich Bakhitov (“the applicant”), on 1 December
2002.
- The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, their
former Representatives before the European Court of Human Rights, and
subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, their Representative.
- On 31 August 2006
the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of proceedings to the
Government. It also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits
of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in
Naro-Fominsk in the Moscow region. He is currently serving a sentence
of imprisonment in the Ryazan region.
- On 22 July 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion
of murder.
- On 18 August 1995 he was charged with robbery, murder,
illegal possession of firearms and false reporting of a crime. On the
same date the prosecutor ordered that the applicant be placed in
detention.
- On 27 June 1996 the prosecution authorities submitted
the case file to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”)
for trial. On 3 June 1997 and 4 March
1998, at
the request of the applicant's counsel, the City Court
referred the case back to the prosecution authorities for additional
investigation on account of serious breaches of procedure. The
prosecutor did not challenge those decisions.
- On 4 August 1998 the additional investigative measures
were completed and the case was submitted to the City Court for
trial. However, on 10 August 1999 the City Court granted a request by
the applicant's counsel to remit, once more, the case for additional
investigation. It held that the prosecution authorities had failed to
implement the instructions given in its decision of 4 March 1998 and
that the applicant's defence rights had been violated during the
investigation. On 24 September 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the
prosecutor's appeal against that decision.
- On 20 May 1999 the case was submitted to the City Court
for trial, after additional investigation. However, on 3 June 1999
the City Court, at the defence's request, again referred the case for
additional investigation on account of serious procedural breaches.
On 22 July 1999 the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
- On 24 August 1999 the case was submitted to the City
Court for trial and the first hearing was scheduled for 24 September
1999. However, on that date the case was adjourned until 1 November
1999 because the applicant's counsel and the victims had failed to
appear. Several hearings were scheduled for November 1999. Two of
them were adjourned at the request of the applicant's counsel.
- On 22 November 1999 the City Court found the applicant
guilty of illegal possession of firearms and acquitted him of the
other charges. It sentenced the applicant to three years'
imprisonment and ordered that he be released
from serving his sentence and consequently from detention, as by that
time he had spent more than four years in detention. The applicant
was released in the courtroom.
- On 13 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation (“the Supreme Court”) heard the case on
appeal. It found, among other things, that the first-instance court
had failed to properly assess the evidence in the case. It upheld the
applicant's acquittal on the charge of false reporting of a crime,
quashed the remaining part of the judgment of 22 November 1999
and remitted that part of the case for fresh examination to the City
Court.
- On 28 January 2000 the case was sent to the City
Court. The first hearing was scheduled for 5 June 2000. However, on
that date the case was adjourned until 1 November 2000 because the
judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. The hearings of 1
November 2000 and 28 March 2001 were postponed for the same reason.
- The hearing of 26 July 2001 was adjourned because the
applicant's defence counsel was on annual leave until 18 August 2001.
The next hearing was scheduled for 8 October 2001.
- The City Court heard the case between 8 October and 20
November 2001. During that period, the case was adjourned on three
occasions: from 12 to 16 October at the request of the applicant's
counsel, from 26 to 29 October because the witnesses did not
appear and from 16 to 19 November at the applicant's request.
The City Court heard evidence from about twenty witnesses and
examined several experts' reports.
- On 30 November 2001 the City Court found the applicant
guilty of illegal possession of firearms, murder and robbery and
sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment with forfeiture of
property.
- In December 2001 the applicant and his lawyer lodged
their grounds of appeal against that judgment. Between January and
April 2002 the applicant was reading the record of the court
hearings. On 18 April 2002 he lodged additional grounds of appeal.
- On 5 June 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment
of 30 November 2001.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained that the length of the
criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the
“reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 §
1 of the Convention, which reads 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. Period to be considered
21. The
Court recalls that the applicant was arrested on 22 July 1995.
However, the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes
of the present case began only on 5 May 1998, when the recognition by
Russia of the right of individual petition took effect. In assessing
the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account
must, nevertheless, be taken of the state of the proceedings at the
time. The period in question ended on 5 June 2002, when the
Supreme Court upheld the applicant's conviction. It thus lasted
a total of almost seven years, of which four years and one month 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 length of
proceedings in the applicant's case had been reasonable. The lengthy
examination of the case had been due to the heavy workload of the
judge in charge of the case. It had been impossible to reassign the
case to a different judge because of the large number of criminal
cases coming before the City Court. There was no evidence that the
authorities had failed to conduct the proceedings with due diligence.
The applicant had been responsible for significant delays in the
proceedings. Some delays had occurred when the case was referred for
additional investigation at his request; several hearings had been
postponed at the request of his counsel.
- The applicant maintained his complaint. He argued that
his case was not a complex one. The most significant delays had
occurred as a result of poor investigation and improper conduct of
the judicial proceedings.
- The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the
length of 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, and the conduct of the
applicant and the relevant authorities (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. The applicant was charged with several
offences, a substantial number of victims were questioned and several
expert examinations were carried out. However, the Court finds that
the complexity of the case, on its own, could not justify the overall
length of the proceedings.
- As regards the applicant's conduct, the Court notes
the Government's argument that certain delays were caused by the
applicant's counsel. However, it finds that those delays were
insignificant. As regards the Government's argument concerning the
referral of the case for additional investigation at the applicant's
request, the Court recalls its consistent approach to the effect that
an applicant should not be blamed for taking full advantage of the
resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interests
(see, mutatis mutandis, Yağcı and Sargın v.
Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A no. 319-A). The
Court considers that the applicant was not responsible for any
substantial delays in the proceedings.
- By contrast, the fact that during the
post-ratification period the case was referred for additional
investigation on two occasions on account of serious procedural
breaches testifies to a very poor quality of investigation. The
resulting delay of approximately one year and three months (from
5 May 1998 until 24 August 1999) is imputable to the domestic
authorities, who failed to conduct the investigation promptly and to
implement the instructions given by the domestic courts.
- 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 the most significant
delays took place during the second round of proceedings. The case
was sent to the City Court on 28 January 2000. However, the first
hearing was scheduled only for 5 June 2000. According to the
Government, the first hearing was scheduled for such a late date
either at the applicant's request or because of the judge's workload.
However, they did not submit any documents in support of their
allegations regarding the applicant's request. Between 5 June
2000 and 26 July 2001 (one year, one month and twenty days) no
hearings took place because the judge was involved in unrelated
proceedings. While the Government acknowledged that those delays had
taken place, they argued that they had been due to the heavy workload
of the judge in charge of the case. In that respect the Court recalls
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 that occurred as a result of the judge's
being involved in unrelated proceedings are imputable to the State.
- Finally, the Court observes that
for one year and six months in the post-ratification period the
applicant was held in detention, and that fact required particular
diligence on the part of the domestic courts to administer justice
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 two years and nine
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 proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been
a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. 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 submitted that he had been awaiting
final judgment in his case for a very long time, causing him severe
distress. He claimed 657,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for
non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government submitted that the applicant's claim
related more to the fact of his conviction rather than to the length
of the proceedings against him. In any event, the amount claimed was
excessive and a finding of a violation would constitute 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
2,700 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant did not claim
reimbursement of his costs and expenses incurred before the domestic
authorities and the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that
there is no call to award him any sum on this 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 remainder of the application
admissible;
- 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
2,700 (two thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non pecuniary damage, 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 unanimously the remainder of the
applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 December 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
