Communicated on 25 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 47446/11 Sergei MAHHOV against Estonia lodged on 17 February 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergei Mahhov , is an Estonian national, who was born in 1977 . He is detained in Viru Prison .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents on file, may be summarised as follows.

On 9 June 2002 s hots were fired from a short distance at K. who was driving a car. He as well as a person sitting on the passenger seat were seriously injured . The perpetrator fled the scene. On the same day criminal investigation was opened ; the scene of the crime and the car were examined.

According to the applicant , on 9 June 2002, h e was in Kohtla-Järve , 160 kilometres away from Tallinn .

On 11 June 2002 the applicant left for Spain. He returned to Estonia on 20 June 2002 and again left the country on 4 July 2002.

In the following months five persons were apprehended as suspects but they were all released as their link to the crime could not be established.

On 17 July 2002 the applicant was arrested in Spain and remanded in custody on suspicion of offences committed in that country. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to nine years ’ imprisonment by a Spanish court.

On 18 October 2002 the applicant was declared as wanted by the Estonian authorities .

On 27 November 2002 the criminal investigation was suspended.

According to the applicant, in the spring of 2003, he was informed by the Spanish authorities that the Estonian law enforcement agencies were interested in him without his being told any further details.

On 16 July 2003 K. was presented with photos of several persons from amongst wh om he recognised the applicant as the one who had shot him.

On 17 September 2003 the Tallinn City Court authorised the applicant ’ s detention for ten days as from his surrender to Estonia. On 24 August 2004 the City Court ordered the applicant ’ s arrest for surrender and thereafter the Prosecutor ’ s Office issued an European arrest warrant.

According to the applicant, in September 2004, he was presented with charges of attempted homicide and causing serious bodily injuries, brought against him by the Estonian authorities. He was asked whether he agreed to be surrendered to Estonia, which he did.

On 17 May 2005 the applicant was temporarily surrendered to Estonia on the basis of the European arrest warrant. He was interrogated twice. O n 4 August 2005 K. recognised the applicant in an identification parade.

On 17 May 2006 the applicant was returned to Spain as the period of his surrender, which had also been extended in the meantime, had expired.

On 25 November 2006 the applicant was committed for trial by the Harju County Court.

On 9 March 2009 the Harju County Court issued a new European arrest warrant. On 22 July 2010 the applicant was surrendered to Estonia.

On 19 January 2011 the Prosecutor ’ s Office drew up an amended bill of indictment.

On 10 February 2011 a hearing took place in the Harju County Court. By a judgment of 23 February 2011 the Harju County Court acquitted the applicant due to lack of evidence . The prosecutor and victims appealed.

On 3 May 2011 a hearing in the Tallinn Court of Appeal was held. By a judgment of 17 May 2011 the Tallinn Court of Appeal quashed the County Court ’ s judgment , convicted the applicant of an attempted murder and sentenced him to eleven years ’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. He raised, inter alia , the issue of the unreasonable length of the proceedings.

On 30 May 2011 the applicant was returned to Spain to serve his sentence.

On 11 July 2011 the Harju County Court issued an European arrest warrant and on 12 July 2011, after having served his sentence in Spain, the applicant was transferred to Estonia.

On 31 August 2011 the Supreme Court decided not to examine the applicant ’ s appeal and the Court of Appeal ’ s judgment became final.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?