FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 5842/05 by Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ORLOV against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Karel Jungwiert , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges, Mykhaylo Buromenskiy , ad hoc judge, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2005,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Orlov , is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Odesa , Ukraine .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 13 April 2000 the police found that the applicant possessed 0,3 g of heroin. They decided to detain him for that reason.

On 16 April 2000 the police investigator instituted criminal proceedings against him. The applicant was provided with legal aid and released on 16 April 2000.

T he police concluded the criminal investigation and committed the applicant for trial o n 1 September 2000.

On 10 February 2001 the police arrested the applicant for further identification. He was released within two hours. Subsequently, the applicant complained to the Odesa Region al Prosecutor that during the arrest he was beaten by the police officers. The P rosecutor found no evidence to support the complaint and refused to institute criminal proceedings against the officers.

On 21 December 2001 the State Border Guards prohibited the applicant to enter Ukraine on his arrival from Hungary .

On 16 January 2002 the State Security Service, replying to a letter of the applicant ' s representative, informed that the applicant had been denied entry for “ national security or public order reasons ” for one year, as from 21 September 2001.

Between May 2002 and January 2003 the applicant ' s representatives repeatedly requested review of the prohibition to enter Ukraine at the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv ( Shevchenkivsky Court ). On 20 June and 20 September 2002, 8 January 2003 the Shevchenkivsky Co urt left the applicant ' s complaints and appeal unexamined due to the representatives ' fail ure to submit power of attorney.

On 12 November 2002 the State Security Service informed the applicant ' s representative that the applicant was again allowed to enter Ukraine .

On 31 January 2003 the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odesa found no evidence that the applicant had acquired and possessed illicit drugs, and acquitted him. In particular, the court concluded that the applicant ' s arrest was unlawful as the applicant was arrested for a minor offence on 13 April and after the release on 16 April was arrested for a criminal offence. By the same judgment, the court terminated the applicant ' s undertaking not to abscond . On 14 February 2003 the Prosecutor of Odesa appealed against the acquittal.

On 22 April 2003 the Odesa Regiona l Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 31 January 2003 and remitted the case to the Primorsky District Court of Odesa ( Primorsky Court ) for a fresh consideration. On 4 August 2003 the Supreme Court left the applicant ' s cassation appeal against the ruling of 22 April 2003 unexamined, stating that th is ruling was not subject to review in cassation .

Betwee n 14 August 2003 and 22 January 2004 the court scheduled five hearings in the case and adjourned them due to the applicant ' s absence. On the latter date, the court ordered the police to conduct a search for the applicant and suspended the proceedings.

In January 2004 the Odesa Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant , in reply to hi s complaints concerning an allegedly unlawful entry of police officers to his apartment and seizure of his belongings, that the Malinovsky District Police Department in Odesa had no record of such acts or complaints in their respect lodged between 15 and 21 March 2002.

On 7 December 2004 the applicant notified the Primorsky Court that he could appear before it.

Between 24 March 2005 and 10 No vember 2005 the proceedings in the case were adjourned eight times due to the absence of the applicant, his lawyer and interpreter, or one of them.

On 13 April 2006 the Primorsky Court found the applicant guilty of acquiring and possessing illicit drugs and sentenced him to one year imprisonment. In the same judgment the court acquitted the applicant due to the statute of limitation. On 20 June 2006 the c ourt of a ppeal, acting on the applicant ' s appeal, quashed the judgment of 13 April 2006 and remitted the case for re-examination .

On 12 June 2007 the Primorsky Court issued a resolution discontinuing criminal proceedings against the applicant due to the statute of limitation. On 18 September 2007 the c ourt of a ppeal, acting on the applicant ' s request , quashed the resolution of 12 June 2007 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.

As of 13 January 2010 the proceedings in the applicant ' s case are still pending before the Primorsky Court .

COMPLAINTS

Referring to Article 5 §§ 1(b) and 5 of the Convention the applicant complains that his detention on 13 April 2000 was unlawful.

He complains about the refusal of the Supreme Court of 4 August 2003 to examine his appeal in cassation. He also states that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was unreasonable. He refers to Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

The applicant complains that in March 2002 the police unlawful ly broke into his apartment, search ed it and seiz ed his property. He refers to Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant also complains of political persecutions for investigative journalism he was involved in.

Under Article 13, the applicant submitted a number of complaints. In particular, he c omplains that he was assigned a lawyer only on the third day of his detention. He also complains that for two years the Shevchenkivsky Court was refusing to examine his complaints. The applicant also complains that the domestic authorities failed to initiate criminal proceedings against those he indicates in the Article 8 § 1 complaint . He concludes with the complaint of his unlawful apprehension by the police in February 2001.

Lastly , referring to Article 2 § 1 of the Protocol No. 4, the applicant complains of the unlawful denial of entry to Ukraine on 21 December 2001 and following expulsion .

THE LAW

A. The length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant

The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings at issue were excessively long , contrary to 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 Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

B. Other complaints

The Court, having examined the remainder of the applicants ' complaints, considers that, in the light of all the materials in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant ' s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

             Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President