THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1706/06 Oļ egs STROGANOVS against Latvia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta , President, Ineta Ziemele , Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2005,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the Latvian Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Oļ egs Stroganovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Daugavpils . The Latvian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.

The circumstances of the case

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

3 . From 26 August 2003 to 26 January 2005 the applicant served a prison sentence in the Daugavgrīva prison after a conviction.

1. The first set of criminal proceedings

(a) Pre-trial proceedings

4 . On 3 October 2003 the applicant was informed of the charges of hooliganism brought against him and other co-defendants in the criminal proceedings which had been launched on 15 April 2003.

5 . On 5 January 2004 the criminal case was forwarded to the Ludza District Court.

6 . Soon afterwards another set of criminal proceedings was instituted in which the applicant was charged of theft and on 16 November 2005 both criminal cases were joined.

7 . Meanwhile, on 16 June 2005 the judge J. of the Ludza District Court detained the applicant on remand. The applicant did not appeal against the decision.

8 . On 5 June 2006 the Ludza District Court changed the preventive measure to police surveillance. The appeal against the decision was left without review as it had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit.

(b) Trial

9 . The lower court scheduled twenty-four hearings with an average interval of three months. Twenty-two times the hearings were postponed owing to the applicant’s or the co-defendants requests. On 27 May 2008 the criminal case was referred for adjudication to another court of first instance, the Rēzekne Court , which on 17 June 2009 found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.

10 . In his appeal the applicant inter alia invoked the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings. On 8 December 2009 the Latgale Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. With respect to the applicant’s argument about the breach of the reasonable length requirement the appellate court referred to all the hearings which had been scheduled with reasonable intervals and noted that they had been postponed owing to the conduct of the applicant and the co-accused.

11 . On 17 January 2010 the applicant submitted an appeal of points of law arguing mainly against the classification of the offence. With respect to his complaint about the length of the proceedings he made the following statement:

“I wish to bring the attention to the Court of Cassation to my mistake. The appellate court rightly observed and recognised that there had been no violation of the reasonable time requirement. Examining the findings of the appellate court and assessing the circumstances I fully acknowledge that I had erred in alleging that there had been a violation of the reasonable time requirement”.

12 . On 18 February 2010 the Senate of the Supreme Court refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal on points of law.

2. The second set of c riminal proceedings

13 . On 28 December 2006 the applicant was detained on remand on suspicion of murder.

14 . On 31 October 2008 the Ludza District Court changed the preventive measure by applying police surveillance to the applicant.

15 . On 14 April 2009 the Ludza District Court as a lower court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years ’ imprisonment .

16 . On 21 December 2009 the Senate of the Supreme Court partly set aside the judgment adopted by the appellate court and remitted the criminal case to the lower court, which on 14 April 2010 adopted a judgment. The final judgment was adopted on 25 January 2011.

COMPLAINTS

17 . The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the first set of criminal proceedings.

18 . He further brought numerous complaints under various other Articles of the Convention concerning the criminal proceedings brought against him .

THE LAW

A. Complaint concerning the l ength of criminal proceedings

19 . On 2 March 2009 t he applicant complained that the length of the first set of criminal proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows in its relevant parts :

“In the determination of ...civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

20 . The Government argued that following the withdrawal of the same complaint made before the domestic courts the applicant had lost his status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

21 . The applicant failed to make any comment in this respect.

22 . T he Court’s case-law shows that it will examine events that have occurred subsequent to the lodging of an application with a view to determining whether the case should be struck out of its list on one or more of the grounds set out in Article 37 of the Convention, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant can still claim “victim” status ( El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (strik ing out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 28 , 20 December 2007 ).

23 . Indeed, in the instant case, the Court does not consider it necessary to reach a conclusion on the question whether the applicant can still claim to be “victim” of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the first set of criminal proceedings brought against him. The Court observes that a fter having lodged this complaint, the applicant withdrew an identical complaint made before the domestic authorities and unequivocally recognised that there had been no violation of the reasonable time requirement (see paragraph 11, above ). The applicant has failed to specify whether in the light of these new developments before the national courts he still wished to maintain this part of the application.

24 . In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c ) of the Convention.

25 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the complaint out of the list.

B. Other complaints

26 . T he applicant alleged violations under various other Articles of the Convention.

27 . In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that the remainder of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of any of the above Articles of the Convention. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike out of its list of cases the complaint of the length of criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar President