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 YELISEYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 12098/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28
May 2009
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 Yeliseyev v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 7 May 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 12098/04) 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
Pavlovich Yeliseyev (“the applicant”), on 28 February
2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
7 November 2006 the
President of the First Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in St Petersburg.
- On
2 August 1999 the applicant lodged an action against two private
companies seeking compensation for damage caused to his car. On the
same day the Sestroretskiy District Court of St. Petersburg adjourned
the examination of the action until 9 February 2000 and ordered that
the applicant should pay a court fee in instalments.
- On
23 May 2000 the Sestroretskiy District Court once again adjourned the
examination of the action, requesting the applicant to pay an
additional court fee because he had amended his claims on 9 February
2000. The applicant paid the fee in full on 30 June 2000.
- No hearings were fixed between September 2000 and 17
October 2000 because the case file had been sent to the St.
Petersburg City Court and the composition of the District Court
examining the applicant's case had been changed.
- The hearing fixed for 17 October 2002 was adjourned
because the case file had been sent to the St. Petersburg City
Prosecutor's office. The following hearing was listed for 11 March
2003.
- According to the Government, hearings fixed between 11
March 2003 and 1 November 2004 were postponed because the companies'
representatives defaulted or asked for adjournments, and because the
presiding judge was ill or involved in other unrelated proceedings.
- On
1 November 2004 the Sestroretskiy District Court dismissed the
action. On the same day the applicant lodged a short version of the
statement of appeal against the judgment of 1 November 2004.
- On
15 November 2004 the applicant complained to the president of the
Sestroretskiy District Court that he had not been served with the
full text of the judgment of 1 November 2004 and that he had not been
allowed to study the case file to prepare his appeal statement.
- On
15 December 2004 the Sestroretskiy District Court adjourned the
appeal proceedings because the applicant had not submitted the
“reasoned” appeal statement and a certificate showing
that he had paid the court fee.
- The
applicant complained about the decision of 15 December 2004 before
the St. Petersburg City Court.
- On
22 April 2005 the St. Petersburg City Court refused to examine the
applicant's appeal, noting that he had failed to comply with the
District Court's decision of 15 December 2004.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- 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
Government, relying on the information provided by the Supreme Court
of the Russian Federation, stated that “the time-limit,
established by the Russian civil procedural law for the examination
of the applicant's case, had been substantially violated”. They
further stressed that the length of the proceedings in the
applicant's case had been excessive, in violation of the “reasonable
time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 2
August 1999 and ended on 22 April 2005 when the St. Petersburg City
Court refused to examine the applicant's appeal against the decision
of 15 December 2004. It thus lasted approximately five years and
nine months for two instances.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is
not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- 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 has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Turning
to the present case, the Court observes substantial delays caused by
the transfer of the case to the higher-instance court and
prosecutor's office, change in the composition of the bench, failure
to fix hearings, judge's illness and his participation in unrelated
proceedings (see paragraphs 7-9 above). The failure to comply with
domestic time-limits was acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation. The Court is also mindful of the Government's
assertion that the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was violated in the applicant's
case.
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the
Convention that the decisions of 2000 concerning the payment of the
court fees had been unfair and that he had been forced to work in
order to pay the fees.
- However,
having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as
these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that
they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 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.
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 37.555 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of
pecuniary damage, representing the cost of his car allegedly damaged
by the respondent company and repair costs. He further claimed RUB
1.560 and 1 percent of the car's cost in losses for each day he
could not use his car. In addition, he claimed compensation for
non-pecuniary damage, leaving the determination of the sum to the
Court.
- The
Government submitted that the claims for compensation for pecuniary
damage were unrelated to the violation which had occurred in the
applicant's case.
- 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, it considers that the applicant suffered distress,
anxiety and frustration because of an unreasonable length of the
proceedings in his case. Making its assessment on an equitable basis,
it awards the applicant 2,400 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
- Without indicating the sum or providing documents in
support, the applicant also claimed compensation for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
- The
Government stressed that the claims were unsubstantiated.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the claim for costs and expenses.
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;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,400 (two
thousand and four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the
date of the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 28 May 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
