Communicated on 16 November 2016
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 21791/12
Hrayr AGANIKYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 2 April 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hrayr Aganikyan, is an American national, who was born in 15 July 1953 and is detained in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Khachatryan, a non-practising lawyer.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 December 2004 an investigator decided to institute criminal proceedings in connection with alleged usury by the applicant, proscribed by Article 213 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”).
On 20 June 2005 the applicant was formally charged under Article 213 § 2 (1) and (2) of the CC with performing usury as a profession which resulted in dire financial consequences for the injured parties. On the same day the investigator decided, as a preventive measure, to have the applicant give a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence.
On 10 August 2005 the investigator sent the bill of indictment to the Kentron and Nork-Marash district prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) for approval.
On 15 August 2005 the prosecutor refused to approve the bill of indictment and returned the case to the investigator for further investigation.
On 15 October 2005 the investigator initiated another set of criminal proceedings under Article 178 § 2 (2) of the CC, concerning the acquisition of property rights through fraud by the applicant. On the same day this case was merged with the case on usury.
On 7 March 2006 the investigator decided to amend the applicant’s charges and to bring new charges against him under Article 178 §§ 2 (2) and 3 (1), Article 182 § 3 (2), Article 213 § 2 (1) and (2), and Article 349 § 1 of the CC on account of fraud in large and particularly large amounts, extortion in particularly large amounts, usury performed as a profession which resulted in dire financial consequences for the injured parties, and forgery of evidence.
On the same date the investigator lodged an application with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months, which was rejected by the District Court.
Upon an appeal by the prosecutor, on 28 March 2006, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s decision and ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of two months.
On 14 July 2006 the prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case was sent to the District Court, which took it over on 24 July 2006.
By the District Court’s decision of 18 August 2006 the case was set for trial.
On 9 July 2007 the District Court granted an application by the applicant’s counsel to have him released on bail.
On 1 November 2007 another judge took over the case and the examination of the case started anew.
On 28 August 2009 the prosecutor decided to amend the charges and to bring new charges against the applicant.
On 12 October 2010 the prosecutor again amended the charges brought against the applicant.
On 31 January 2011 the District Court gave judgement, finding the applicant guilty of five counts of offences defined in Article 178 § 3 (1) (fraud), Article 182 § 3 (2) (extortion), Article 213 § 2 (1) and (2) (usury), and Article 349 § 1 (forgery of evidence) and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment, confiscation of half his property and a fine of 400,000 Armenian drams (AMD). It appears that during the proceedings the District Court examined forty-seven witnesses, about thirty pieces of documentary evidence and five expert opinions, one of which was ordered by the District Court.
The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against this judgment.
On 3 October 2011 the Criminal Court of Appeal rejected the appeals and upheld the District Court’s judgment.
The applicant’s counsel lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 21 November 2011 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings concerning the determination of his criminal charge were unreasonably lengthy, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
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?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy