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]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF LYGUN v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 50165/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lygun v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Ganna Yudkivska,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 50165/06) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Ukrainian
national, Mr Oleksandr Vasylyovych Lygun (“the applicant”),
on 25 November 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr V. Fedorets, a lawyer practising in
Zaporizhzhya. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of
Justice.
- On
12 January 2010 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to
the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the
application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the Zaporizhzhya Region.
- In
July 2001 the police instituted criminal proceedings against him on
suspicion of murder.
- Following
three remittals of the case for additional investigations (on 12
February 2002, 9 July 2003 and 2 June 2004), on 7 April 2005 the
Melitopol Court found the applicant guilty of negligent homicide,
sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and amnestied him.
- In
a separate ruling issued on the same date, the court noted that the
case had been three times remitted for additional investigations as
the investigators had repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s
rulings, which had resulted in the protraction of the proceedings and
in the breach of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention.
- On
29 June 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the
judgment of 7 April 2005 and remitted the case for additional
investigations.
- Following
two further remittals of the case by the Melitopol Court for
additional investigations (on 28 March and 5 October 2006), on 3
March 2007 the police discontinued the criminal proceedings against
the applicant for want of proof against him.
- In
the course of the proceedings the investigators and the courts heard
thirty-eight witnesses, a victim’s relative and experts. Eleven
forensic examinations were carried out, their overall duration
amounting to approximately seven months. Two hearings were adjourned
due to the applicant’s failure to appear. Between 15 and 29
September 2005 the investigations were suspended due to the
applicant’s illness. Some fifteen hearings were adjourned due
to the experts’, witnesses’ or victim’s relatives’
failure to appear, illness of a judge or for unspecified reasons.
THE LAW
I. SCOPE OF THE CASE
- Following
the Court’s partial admissibility decision, the applicant made
further submissions, in which he reiterated all his original
complaints.
- In its partial admissibility
decision, the Court adjourned the examination of the applicant’s
complaint about the length of the proceedings and declared the
remaining complaints inadmissible. Therefore, the scope of the
case before the Court is now limited to the length-of-proceedings
complaint.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in 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...”
- The
Government contested that argument stating, in particular, that the
case had been complex and that the applicant had contributed to the
length of the proceedings by lodging appeals
and various procedural petitions and by failing to attend some of the
hearings.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began
in July 2001 and ended on 3 March 2007. The proceedings thus lasted
for about five years and eight months and involved the courts of two
levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the 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
- 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,
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).
- Turning
to the circumstances of the case, the Court notes that the complexity
of the case and the conduct of the applicant, who somewhat
contributed to the length of the proceedings (see paragraph 10
above), cannot explain their overall duration. In particular, the
Court observes that the major delays in the proceedings were caused
by the repeated remittals of the case for additional investigations.
Furthermore, it was not suggested by the Government that the domestic
courts had applied any measures to ensure appropriate behaviour by
the persons taking part in the proceedings and to avoid the need to
adjourn hearings (see paragraph 10 above). The Court concludes that
the main responsibility for the protracted length of the proceeding
rested with the State.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, 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.
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, costs and expenses
- The
applicant requested the Court to award him compensation for pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage, without any further specification.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, considering that the applicant suffered some
non-pecuniary damage on account of the length of the proceedings in
his case, it awards him 1,600 euros (EUR) in this respect.
B. 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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- 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 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into
the national currency of the respondent State 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 16 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President
