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 VOLODINA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 24411/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19
April 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Volodina v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Mirjana Lazarova
Trajkovska, judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 March 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 24411/05) 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, Ms Faina Dmitriyevna Volodina (“the
applicant”), on 2 June 2005.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
12 February 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.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tula.
A. The court proceedings
1. Proceedings before 1998
- On
1 April 1994 the applicant brought a court action against a
troop unit no. 92914 (войсковая
часть
№ 92914), her former employer. She sought
reinstatement in her job, lost wages and non-pecuniary damages.
- By
a judgment of 17 April 1996, the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula
upheld the applicant’s action in part. In 1997 both
parties to the case brought their appeals. However, the applicant
subsequently withdrew her appeal and the defendant’s appeal was
not accepted by the court. The exact date when the judgment became
final is unknown.
2. Proceedings in 1998 and 1999
- On
1 June 1998 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court, on request
of the Chairman of the Tula Regional Court, by way of supervisory
review proceedings quashed the judgment of 17 April 1996 and remitted
the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.
- The first hearing, which was scheduled for 13 November
1998, was postponed because the judge was involved in the examination
of another case.
- The
next hearing was scheduled for 3 March 1999. It did not take place
owing to both parties’ failure to appear.
- On 5 May 1999 the applicant asked the court to
conduct an expert examination. The court adjourned the hearing in
view of the need to request additional documents from the defendant.
- The following hearings, which were scheduled for 25
June and 2 August 1999, did not take place because of the
involvement of the judge in the examination of another case and the
judge’s illness, respectively.
- On 11 September 1999 the defendant’s
representative did not attend.
- On
20 September 1999 the court ordered the expert examination and stayed
the proceedings.
3. Proceedings in 2000
- On 13 March 2000 the District Court decided to resume
the proceedings. The first hearing was scheduled for 19 May
2000. It was not held owing to the expiry of the presiding judge’s
term of office.
- The hearing of 18 September 2000 did not take
place because the presiding judge was involved in the examination of
another case.
- On 16 November 2000 the defendant’s
representative failed to attend the hearing.
- On 6 December 2000 the court decided to give the
applicant time to amend her claims.
4. Proceedings in 2001
- The hearings on 16 January and 20 February 2001 were
postponed owing to the involvement of the judge in the examination of
another case and the judge’s illness, respectively.
- The
hearing on 30 March 2001 was adjourned because the court decided to
give parties time to negotiate the arrears.
- On the next hearing, which was scheduled for 14 May
2001, the defendant’s representative did not appear.
- On 1 June 2001 the court, at the applicant’s
request, asked certain documents from the defendant.
- The
hearing on 7 September 2001 was adjourned owing to the need to summon
and examine witnesses.
- On the next hearing, which was scheduled for 1 October
2001, the defendant’s representative did not appear.
- Between 30 October and 15 November 2001 the court held
seven hearings during which the applicant amended her claims and the
defendant lodged a counter-claim.
5. Proceedings in 2002
- The
first hearing in 2002 did not take place due to the illness of the
defendant’s representative.
- Three hearings scheduled between 15 May and 16
December 2002 were postponed at the applicant’s request.
6. Proceedings in 2003
- The
first hearing in 2003 was scheduled for 20 February. It is unknown
whether it took place.
- On
1 April 2003 the applicant’s case was transferred to
another presiding judge.
- The hearing of 27 May 2003 was adjourned because the
court requested the applicant to amend her claims.
- The hearing of 16 June 2003 did not take place because
the defendant’s representative failed to attend.
- The next hearing was scheduled for 20 August 2003. It
was postponed at the request of the defendant. Three subsequent
hearings, which were scheduled for 15 October, 4 and
27 November 2003, did not take place because the defendant’s
representative repeatedly failed to appear in court.
7. Proceedings in 2004
- On 20 January 2004, at the request of the applicant,
the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the decision of the Presidium of
the Tula Regional Court of 1 June 1998 (see paragraph 7 above)
and ordered a fresh examination of her case by the Presidium of the
Regional Court.
- On
17 May 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court again quashed
the judgment of 17 April 1996 and remitted the case to the
District Court for a fresh examination on merits.
- The
first hearing after the case file was received by the District Court
was scheduled for 17 August 2004. It was postponed at the
request of the defendant.
- The
hearing of 29 September 2004 did not take place as the
defendant’s representative asked time to study the case file.
- On
30 September 2004 the court decided to invite an expert and adjourned
the hearing until 12 October 2004.
- On
12 October 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment by which it
upheld the applicant’s claims in part.
- By
decisions of 11 and 20 January 2005 the District Court granted the
applications by the defendant and the prosecutor, respectively, for
the extension of the time-limit for lodging their appeals.
- On
5 April 2005, on appeal by the defendant and the public prosecutor,
the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 October 2004 and
remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination.
8. Proceedings in 2005
- The hearing on 8 June 2005 was postponed at the
request of the applicant.
- On
6 July 2005 the court delivered a judgment by which it again upheld
the applicant’s claims in part.
- On
6, 7 July and 11 October 2005 the applicant, the
public prosecutor and the defendant, respectively, filed their
appeals.
- On an unspecified date, having prepared the case file,
the District Court sent it to the Regional Court for the examination
of the appeals. On 24 January 2006 the latter decided to
postpone the appeal hearing and remitted the file to the former for
remedying certain procedural defects.
- On
30 March 2006 the Regional Court reviewed the case and endorsed
the District Court’s findings.
B. Enforcement proceedings
- On
an unspecified date the applicant brought court proceedings against
the Bailiffs’ Service of Voronezh complaining about their
failure to execute the judgment of 17 April 1996. By the
judgment of 28 April 2004, the Leninskiy District Court of
Voronezh dismissed her claims as being manifestly ill-founded. It
appears that the applicant did not appeal and on 10 May
2004 the judgment became final. In 2005 she brought an application
for supervisory review proceedings but to no avail.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The Code of Civil Procedure of 14 November 2002
provides that parties to the proceedings are obliged to inform the
court of the reasons of their failure to appear and to adduces
evidence disclosing a valid excuse for not attending the hearing
(paragraph 1).
- In case a party to the proceedings was duly summoned
to the hearing but failed to appear without a valid excuse, the court
may examine the case in the absence of this party (paragraph 3).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF
THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE 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
Court observes that the proceedings consisted of two periods. The
first period lasted from 1 April 1994, when the applicant brought her
action, until unspecified date in 1997, when the judgment of 17 April
1996, by which her claims had been upheld in part, became final. The
second period lasted from 1 June 1998, when the supervisory review
court quashed the judgment of 17 April 1996, until 30 March 2003,
when the appeal court, in the final instance, upheld her claims in
part.
- The proceedings that occurred before 5 May 1998, the
date of entry of the Convention into force in respect of Russia, have
to be excluded from the overall length. Thus, their aggregate length
within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis amounts
to seven years and ten months when the applicant’s case
was considered twice by the first-instance court, twice by the appeal
court and once by the supervisory review court.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is
not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
1. Parties submissions
- The Government disagreed with the complaint. They
presented a list of court hearings as well as reasons of the
adjournment decisions. On the basis of those data, they argued that
the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by
having lodged numerous motions and by having failed to appear on
several hearings. They also asserted that the case had been rather
complex. It had been examined twice at three levels of jurisdiction.
The courts did not display any negligence or procrastination. In the
Government’s view, the overall length of the proceedings was
not excessive in the circumstances.
- The
applicant maintained her complaint.
2. The Court’s assessment
- 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 further reiterates that in cases relating to labour disputes,
special diligence is required in view of the possible consequences
which the excessive length of proceedings may have. Such issues
should be dealt with speedily (see Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment
of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39,
§ 17).
- On
the facts of the case the Court first notes that the issues decided
by the courts did not seem particularly complex. Furthermore, the
events in question were already subject to judicial examination in
1994-1996 and were thus not completely unknown to the judicial
authorities. 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).
- Insofar
as the applicant’s behaviour is concerned, the Court accepts
that four hearings were postponed at her requests (see paragraphs 26
and 40 above) and the resulted delay of approximately eight
months should be attributed to the applicant.
- As
to the Government’s argument that she delayed the proceedings
by lodging procedural applications, the Court observes that she
lodged two procedural applications, modified her claims on two
occasion, was once invited by the court to specify her claims and on
one occasion requested the supervisory review proceedings (see
paragraphs 10, 17, 21, 24, 29 and 32 above). These procedural actions
were not abusive, frivolous or vexatious. Furthermore, it should be
reiterated that an applicant cannot be criticised for taking full
advantage of resources afforded by national law in the defence of his
or her interests, even if it results in a certain increase in the
length of the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Yağcı
and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66,
Series A no. 319-A and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC],
no. 75529/01, § 131, ECHR 2006-VII).
- Turning
to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court observes the
applicant’s case was examined two times at three levels of
jurisdiction. The courts did not display any particular
procrastination in scheduling the hearings and resolving the parties’
applications but were not industrious either, when the case implied
specific diligence. The Court notes two major deficiencies that
occurred in the course of the proceedings.
- Firstly,
the unavailability of the first-instance court for the applicant’s
case on several occasions, notably the involvement of the bench of
judges in different proceedings, their illnesses, the presiding
judge’s suspension from office and the transfer of the
applicant’s case to another presiding judge (see paragraphs 8,
11, 14, 15 and 18 above), which resulted in a total delay of more
than one year and four months. The Court also notes a two-month delay
when the defects in the case file required the Regional Court to
postpone the appeal hearing (see paragraph 43 above).
- Secondly,
on many occasions the hearings did not take place because the
defendant’s representative failed to attend without a valid
reason (see paragraphs 12, 16, 20, 23, 30 and 31 above). The
aggregated delay amounted to approximately seven months. Nothing in
the materials submitted suggests that the District Court used any
measure to discipline this participant and to ensure that the case be
heard within a reasonable time, or considered the possibility of the
adjudication of the case in the absence of the defendant (see
paragraph 47 above). It follows that the domestic authorities borne
some responsibility for the delay caused by the failure of the
defendant’s representative to attend the hearings.
- Having regard to the
importance of the dispute for the applicant, the overall length of
the proceedings and the delays imputable to the State, the Court
considers that in the instant case the “reasonable time”
requirement was not complied with. There has accordingly been a
breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant lastly complained under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention about the length of the civil proceedings which she had
brought against the Bailiffs’ Service of Voronezh.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as those
complaints fall within its competence, the Court 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 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage as a result of the lengthy examination of her claim. Ruling on
an equitable basis and having regard to the nature of the proceedings
in the present case, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,400
under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant submitted no claim under this head.
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 EUR
2,400 (two thousand four hundred 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 19 April 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach George Nicolaou
Deputy Registrar President
