BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF VLADIMIR NIKITIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 15969/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2
November 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Vladimir Nikitin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S.
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 October 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 15969/02) against the
Russian Federation lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Russian national, Mr Vladimir
Grigoryevich Nikitin (“the applicant”), on 15 June 2001.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
2 September 2005 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the town of Vorkuta in the
Komi Republic of the Russian Federation.
- On
8 August 1994 the applicant sued his employer, a mining company, for
payment of royalties. The first hearing, fixed for 25 August
1994, was adjourned due to the applicant's absence. The following
hearings of 9 December 1994 and 20 January 1995 were also postponed
upon his requests.
- On
22 February 1995 the Vorkuta Town Court found for the applicant.
However, that judgment was quashed on appeal on 30 March 1995 and
re-examination was ordered. The applicant amended his claims.
- On
11 March 1996 the Town Court ordered an expert study. The proceedings
were stayed until January 1997 when the Town Court received the
expert report. In April 1997 another expert study was
ordered. The applicant again amended his claims.
- On
16 May 1997 the Vorkuta Town Court dismissed the action. That
judgment was quashed on appeal on 25 August 1997 and the case was
remitted for a fresh examination.
- A judge was assigned to the case in December 1997 and
the first hearing was listed for 13 November 1998. However, that
hearing was adjourned because the parties defaulted. The
following hearing of 18 October 1999 was postponed upon the
parties' request for provision of additional evidence.
- On
22 October 1999 the Town Court ordered an expert examination. The
proceedings were resumed on 15 March 2000 after the expert report had
been submitted to the Town Court.
- Two hearings, fixed between March and 17 November
2000, were adjourned because the defendant defaulted and the court
wanted to call an expert.
- On
17 November 2000 the Vorkuta Town Court ordered an expert study. The
proceedings were resumed a week later.
- On
19 February 2001 the Vorkuta Town Court found for the applicant. The
judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for
re-examination on 21 May 2001.
- A judge was assigned to the case on 22 August 2001. In
September and November 2001 the presiding judge inquired several
expert organisations about a possibility to perform expert studies. A
hearing was fixed for 17 January 2002. However, it was adjourned for
provision of additional evidence by the defendant. The following
hearing was fixed for 26 March 2002.
- On
27 March 2002 the Vorkuta Town Court ordered another expert
examination. The applicant appealed against that decision, but on 20
May 2002 his appeal was dismissed.
- In May 2002 the Town Court sent the case-file to an
expert bureau. A month later the experts asked the Town Court for
additional documents. The documents were submitted to the experts in
August 2002. In October and November 2002 the experts inquired the
Town Court about the fees for their work.
- In
February 2003 the Town Court asked the Judicial Department of the
Komi Republic to bear the costs of the expert examination. It appears
that the expert fees were paid in July 2003.
- In
August and October 2003 the Vorkuta Town Court inquired the experts
about the progress in their work. On 1 April 2004 the experts
informed the Town Court that the expert report had been submitted to
it on 19 September 2002.
- In
May 2004 the experts once again sent the report to the Town Court.
The report contained certain procedural defects and the Town Court
asked for corrections. In July and September 2004 the Town Court
repeated its request. No response followed.
- From
29 January to 28 April 2005 the applicant lived in Ukraine.
- On 11 February 2005 the Town Court received the
corrected expert report. Three days later the proceedings were
resumed and a hearing was fixed for 10 March 2005. The parties were
summoned. The summonses to the applicant were sent to all known
addresses, including one in Ukraine.
- The
hearing of 10 March 2005 was postponed because the applicant
defaulted. The advice of receipt concerning the applicant's summonses
returned from Ukraine with the note indicating that the applicant had
refused to accept them. The following hearing was fixed for 4 April
2005. The Town Court sent summonses to all known addresses of the
applicant, including one in Ukraine. It also unsuccessfully attempted
to summon the applicant by phone.
- On
4 April 2005 the Vorkuta Town Court disallowed the applicant's action
because he had failed to attend two hearings and had not notified of
the reasons for his absence.
- The
applicant applied to the Town Court for annulment of the decision of
4 April 2005. On 20 October 2005 the Vorkuta Town Court dismissed the
request. The court held that the applicant had been properly
summoned. Moreover, there was evidence that he had refused to accept
the summonses for the hearing of 10 March 2005. The applicant did not
appeal against the decision of 20 October 2005 to the Supreme Court
of the Komi Republic.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
period to be taken into consideration only began on 5 May 1998, when
the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. However, in
assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that
date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
The period in question ended on 20 October 2005 with the decision of
the Vorkuta Town Court. Thus, the Court has competence ratione
temporis to examine the period of approximately seven years and
six months when the proceedings were pending before courts of two
levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government argued that the case had been very complex as it had
required taking of evidence, including statements by specialists and
several expert examinations. The applicant contributed to the delays
in the proceedings by amending his claims on several occasions.
- The
applicant averred that he could not be blamed for amending his claims
because he had been forced to do so due to frequent changes in
economic situation while the proceedings had been pending.
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court agrees that the proceedings at issue were complex as they
required examination of voluminous technical documents and several
expert studies. However, the Court cannot accept that the complexity
of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall
length of the proceedings.
- As
concerns the applicant's conduct, the Court is not convinced by the
Government's argument that the applicant should be responsible for
amending his claims and seeking to obtain additional evidence. It has
been the Court's constant approach that an applicant cannot be blamed
for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law
in the defence of his interests (see, mutatis mutandis, Yağcı
and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no.
319 A, § 66). The Court, however, notes a delay of
approximately one month which was caused by the applicant's failure
to accept the summonses for the hearings of 10 March and 4 April 2005
(see paragraphs 21-22 above). Nevertheless, the period attributable
to the applicant's behaviour is negligible, considering the overall
length of the proceedings.
- The
Court, further, observes the substantial periods of inactivity for
which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation,
are attributable to the domestic courts. It took them up to twelve
months to fix hearings (see paragraphs 9, 11 and 14 above). The Court
also notes a delay of approximately two and a half years caused by
the Court's inability to obtain an expert report in 2002-2005 (see
paragraphs 16-21 above). The Court is not called upon to determine
the reason for the delay in the preparation of the report (either
there were certain difficulties in financing the expert work or the
expert report was merely lost in September 2002, etc.), because
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States
the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their
courts can meet the obligation to decide cases within a reasonable
time (see, among other authorities, Löffler v. Austria,
no. 30546/96, § 57, 3 October 2000). The Court observes
that the principal responsibility for a delay caused by the expert
examinations rests ultimately with the State (see Capuano
v. Italy, judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A
no. 119, § 32, and Antonov v. Russia, (dec.),
38020/03, 3 November 2005).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to the
overall length of the proceedings and what was at stake for the
applicant, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of
the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of
Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that
the proceedings had been unfair because the courts had committed
serious errors of fact and had wrongly assessed evidence and that the
decision of 20 October 2005 was unlawful as he had not been properly
summoned for the hearings.
- The
Court notes that the applicant did not appeal against the
first-instance decision of 20 October 2005 to a higher-instance court
in order to obtain redress in this respect. It follows that this
complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 208,077,750 Russian roubles (RUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage, representing royalties allegedly due to him by his
former employer and interest thereon. He also claimed RUR 6,000,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that there was no causal link between the violation
found and the damage alleged. In any event, the claims were
unreasonable and excessive.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered
distress because of the excessive length of the proceedings in his
case. However, the particular amount claimed appears excessive. The
Court takes into account the overall length of the proceedings and
the subject-matter of the dispute to which the applicant was a party.
Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant
EUR 5,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that
may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed RUR 718.9 for postage expenses, RUR 5,000
for translation expenses and RUR 200,000 for legal costs incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government indicated that the applicant's claims were not supported
by appropriate documentation.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum. The Court observes that the applicant was granted leave to
represent himself and use the Russian language in the Strasbourg
proceedings. He also did not provide the Court with any document
(copies of contracts with a lawyer or a translator, vouchers or
receipts) to substantiate his claims relating to legal and
translation expenses. Therefore, the Court makes no award in respect
of those claims. As to the claim in respect of postage expenses, the
Court observes that the applicant provided the Court with copies of
postage receipts. Thus, regard being had to the information in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable
to award the sum of EUR 25 under this head, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of
the proceedings;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of the settlement:
(i) EUR
5,900 (five thousand and nine hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
25 (twenty-five euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 November 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
