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 KOZYAK v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 25224/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 January
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kozyak v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 25224/04) 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 Sergey Yeliseyevich
Kozyak (“the applicant”), on 21 May 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms T.V. Dvortsova, a lawyer practising
in Vorkuta, Komi Republic. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
10 June 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with
Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee. It was
also decided that the Committee would rule on the admissibility and
merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1 of
the Convention).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chelyabinsk.
- The
applicant receives disability allowance following health damage in
his previous work in the mining industry.
- On
8 September 1999 the applicant seized the Vorkuta Town Court of the
Komi Republic (“the Town Court”) with a claim against the
local branch of the Social Security Fund of Russia alleging incorrect
calculation of his disability allowance and seeking the unpaid
damages. On the same day the Town Court scheduled the first hearing
for 8 September 2000.
- The
hearing scheduled for 8 September 2000 did not take place following
the respondent’s representative’s default in appearance.
The court adjourned the next hearing of 20 October 2000 after
granting the respondent’s motion for obtainment of certain
archive documents.
- On
19 July 2001 the applicant’s representative motioned for
adjournment of examination of the case to 16 September 2001 due to
her vacation.
- At
the hearing of 18 September 2001 the applicant’s representative
specified the claims and requested that the court join the Ministry
of Energy of Russia to the proceedings as a co-respondent. The
request was granted by the court, and the hearing was adjourned.
- The
hearing scheduled for 5 November 2001 did not take place due to the
judge’s illness.
- By
letter of 28 December 2001 the applicant requested that the case be
examined in his absence, with participation of his representative.
- On
21 February 2002 the applicant’s representative renounced the
claims against the Ministry of Energy.
- The
hearing scheduled for 22 February 2002 did not take place as the
parties did not show. The applicant’s representative requested
that the court examine the case in her absence as she was involved in
different proceedings.
- On
11 April 2002 the applicant again motioned for examination of the
claims in his absence.
- The
court postponed the hearing of 16 April 2002 at its own initiative to
obtain the applicant’s trade union membership records.
- On
11 May 2002 the applicant’s representative specified the claims
in writing. At this date the hearing did not take place due to the
respondent’s default in appearance.
- On
15 May 2002 both the respondent and the applicant’s
representative motioned for examination of the case in their absence.
The applicant’s claims were once again specified, and the
claims against the Ministry of Energy were resumed.
- On
16 May 2002 the court ordered an expert examination and adjourned the
proceedings.
- On
29 October 2002 the expert examination was completed. The next
hearing was scheduled for 24 December 2002.
- On
23 and 24 December 2002, respectively, the applicant’s
representative and the respondent motioned for examination of the
claims in their absence. The former once again specified the claims.
- On
8 January 2003 the Town Court gave a judgment awarding the applicant
621,999 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and legal expenses, and RUB
34,350 as monthly payments with further indexation in accordance with
the minimum wage. Both parties appealed.
- On
31 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic acting as the
appeal court remitted the case to the first instance for
clarification of the judgment in the calculation part. On 22 May 2003
the trial court clarified the judgment as ordered.
- The
appeal hearing of 30 June 2003 was adjourned to obtain the documents
referred to in the judgment, which were not included in the
case-file.
- On
17 July 2003 the appeal court again remitted the case to the first
instance for correction of an arithmetical error made in the
judgment. The error was corrected on 1 September 2003.
- On
4 December 2003 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the
judgment of 8 January 2003 on appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the proceedings to decide his claims had
been too long. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the
relevant part of 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 ...”
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 submitted that the case had been complex and that the
applicant had delayed the proceedings by specifying his claims and
not showing at the hearings on multiple occasions. They admitted that
the authorities had been responsible for the period of inactivity of
one year that had taken place after the applicant had brought his
claims to the court.
- The
applicant countered that the length had been attributable to the
trial court which had postponed scheduled hearings for the parties’
default in appearance despite their repeated requests to examine the
case in their absence, obtained various documents and ordered an
expert examination at its own initiative. He further argued that the
“reasonable time” requirement had also been breached at
the appeal stage of the proceedings.
- The
Court observes that the proceedings in the applicant’s case
commenced on 8 September 1999 and ended on 4 December 2003, during
which period the domestic courts considered his claims at two levels
of jurisdiction. Their aggregate length thus amounts approximately to
four years and three months.
- 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 considers that the applicant’s case was not characterised
by particular complexity.
- As
to the applicant’s conduct, it observes that the applicant
amended his claims on four occasions and did not show at the hearing
or requested adjournment of the proceedings on another four
occasions. The Court notes, however, that these motions did not lead
to a considerable delay in the proceedings. It further reiterates in
respect of the claims alterations that an applicant cannot be blamed
for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by the national
law in defence of his interests (see, mutatis mutandis, Yağcı
and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A
no. 319 A).
- Turning
to the conduct of the authorities, the Court’s attention is
drawn to several significant periods of delay. Thus, it observes that
the first hearing in the case was scheduled in one year from the date
of lodging of the claims and that the court was inactive for nine
months after adjourning the hearing of 20 October 2000 to allow the
State respondent to collect certain documents. Furthermore, despite
the relative simplicity of the case, its examination at the first
instance was plagued by various defects which compelled the appeal
court to remit it to the trial court on three occasions. In this
respect the Court reiterates that the Convention and its Protocols
must be interpreted as guaranteeing rights which are practical and
effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory. The right to have
one’s claim examined within a reasonable time would be devoid
of all sense if domestic courts examined a case endlessly, even if at
the end the length of proceedings per instance did not appear
particularly excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Svetlana
Orlova v. Russia, no. 4487/04, §
47, 30 July 2009).
- Although
the Court is not in a position to analyse the juridical quality of
the domestic courts’ decisions, it considers that multiple
repetition of re-examination orders within one set of proceedings may
disclose a deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska
v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003; Matica
v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006; and
Falimonov v. Russia, no. 11549/02, § 58,
25 March 2008). The fact that the domestic courts heard the case
several times did not absolve them from complying with the reasonable
time requirement of Article 6 § 1 (see Litoselitis v. Greece,
no. 62771/00, § 32, 5 February 2004; and Svetlana
Orlova, cited above, § 50). The Court therefore arrives
at the conclusion that the repeated referrals of the case to the
first instance significantly contributed to the length at hand.
- Finally,
the Court bears in mind that the applicant was in a vulnerable
position, given especially that the disability allowance at issue was
his principal source of income. It thus considers that the
authorities had an obligation to examine the applicant’s claims
with special diligence.
- Regard
being had to the significant delays attributable to the authorities
and the importance of the case for the applicant, the Court arrives
at the conclusion that the length of the proceedings at hand did not
comply with the “reasonable time” requirement.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
II. 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 1,612,158 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately
41,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage resulting
from alleged failure of the domestic courts to correctly calculate
the award. He also claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government disputed the claims as unfounded 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, it accepts that the applicant suffered distress and
frustration in connection with the unreasonable length of the
proceedings and, deciding on an equitable basis, awards the applicant
EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. 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 application admissible;
- 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,
EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of non pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian
roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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 13 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Elisabeth Steiner
Deputy
Registrar President
