FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 25914/06 by Mikhail Vasilyevich SIZYKH against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Renate Jaeger , Karel Jungwiert , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Regist r ar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 May 2006 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mikhail Vasilyevich Sizykh, is a Ukrainian national , born in 1962 , who currently serves a prison sentence in the Mykolayiv Region. He is represented before the Court by his mother, M r s Sizykh.

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

On 12 October 1998 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of extortion. On 12 January 1999 they discontinued the proceedings for lack of evidence against the applicant, but, as it appears from the case file, in February 1999 they re-instituted the proceedings.

Between 17 April and 6 November 2000 the applicant remained in pre-trial detention. He submits that the police officer G. repeatedly threatened him with torture in order to get his confession, demanded bribe from him, searched his flat with other police officers and put handcuffs on him. The applicant did not raise these complaints before the domestic courts.

As it appears from the case file, on 4 May 2000 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“District Court”) remitted the case for an additional investigation. The court allegedly examined the investigator N. as a witness, who, following the remittal carried out additional investigation of the case against the applicant. As it appears from the courts ’ decisions, the courts questioned N. only in respect of materi al evidence.

On 6 November 2000 the District Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful loan operations in a bank he worked in and sentenced him to one year ’ s correctional labour. On 19 December 2000 the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.

On 11 February 2002 the District Court found the applicant guilty of forcing certain individuals to perform contractual obligations and sentenced him to one year ’ s correctional labour. The injured party in the proceedings S. sought extension of a time-limit for lodging an appeal against the above judgment and the courts, as it appears from the case file, granted such extension. The applicant appealed against one of the rulings granting the extension with the Court of Appeal, which, as it appears from the case file, returned it unexamined as it was not subject of appeal.

On 10 June 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 11 February 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The applicant appealed against the ruling of 10 June 2003 to the Supreme Court, the outcome of consideration in which is not clear.

On 11 May 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty of extortion and sentenced him to five years ’ imprisonment with one year ’ s probationary period. On 3 August 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.

On 2 February 2005 the District Court, having examined ten witnesses , a number of documentary evidence and an expert opinion in the course of adversarial proceedings , in which the applicant was present, found the latter guilty of extortion and sentenced him to seven years ’ imprisonment.

On 29 March 2005 and 28 February 2006 respectively, the Court of Appeal (in the applicant ’ s presence) and the Supreme Court (in his lawyer ’ s presence) upheld the above judgment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the reasonable time requirement .

He also complains under the following provisions of the Convention:

- Article 3 stating the police officer G. threatened him with tort ure in order to get his confession, demanded bribe from him, searched his flat with o ther police officers and put handcuffs on him;

- Article 5 § 1 about unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention between 17 April and 6 November 2000 ;

- Article s 6 § 1 , 7, 13 and 14 about and on account of unfavourable outcome of the proceedings and unlawfulness of his conviction; that the courts were biased; that the courts have not heard his wife as a witness ; that N. c arried out investigation after having been allegedly exam ined by the courts ; that the re was no audio - record ing of the hearings ; that the Court of Appeal did not inform him of the hearing of his appeal against the ruling granting S. an extension of a time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 11 February 2002 ; that the Supreme Court did not inform him of the hearing of his appeal in cassation against the ruling of 10 June 200 3 and that he was not present before it at a hearing on 28 February 2006 ; and

- Article 17 that the prison authorities deprive him of unspecified benefits, without further specification.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the reasonable time requirement, provided 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 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.

The Court , ha ving examined the remainder of the applicant ’ s complaint s, 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 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

F or 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.

Stephen Phillips Peer Lorenzen              Deputy Registrar President