ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.06.2005<ДЕЛО КУЗИН (kuzin) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KUZIN v.
RUSSIA
(Application No. 22118/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg,
9.VI.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> 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 Kuzin v.
Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
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 19 May
2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 22118/02)
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 Sergey Kuzin ("the applicant"), on 12 May
2002.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr
P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
3. On 30 October 2003 the Court decided to communicate the
application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time
as its admissibility. On 7 September 2004 the Court requested the Government to
submit additional observations on the admissibility and merits of the
application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in
Moscow.
First set of proceedings
5. On 15 June 1998 the applicant
brought proceedings against four publishing houses seeking recognition of his
copyright and an award of damages. The claim was lodged with the Ostankinskiy
District Court of Moscow.
6. On 5 November 1998 the claim was rejected on
the ground that, according to the rules governing jurisdiction, it should have
been filed with another court. On 15 November 1998 the applicant filed a
complaint with the Moscow City Court.
7. The Moscow City Court on 10
December 1998 quashed the ruling of 5 November 1998 and remitted the case to the
Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.
8. On 22
April 1999 the Ostankinskiy District Court ruled that the case should be
remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow. On 5 May 1999 the
applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.
9. The Moscow
City Court on 30 July 1999 quashed the ruling of 22 April 1999 and remitted the
case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.
10. On 11 November 1999 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 6 December 1999.
However, the preparation of the case was initially extended to 31 January 2000
because of the defendants" failure to appear and subsequently extended to 14
February 2000 because of the judge"s holiday leave.
11. On 14 February
2000 a hearing on the merits was fixed for 16 March 2000. That hearing did not
take place because the case had been transferred to another judge.
12. On
10 August 2000 a hearing was fixed for 21 August 2000. It was initially
postponed to 20 November 2000 because the judge was engaged in unrelated
proceedings, and then to 18 December 2000 because of the defendants" failure to
appear.
13. The Ostankinskiy District Court on 18 December 2000 again
ruled that the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court. On 12
February 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.
14. The Moscow City Court on 14 March 2001 quashed the ruling of 18 December
2000 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration
on the merits.
15. On 27 August 2001 a hearing on the merits was fixed
for 29 November 2001. However, it was first postponed to 28 December 2001 and
then to 4 January 2002 because the judge was engaged in unrelated
proceedings.
16. On 4 January 2002 the hearing was postponed to 7
February 2002 because of the parties" failure to appear. The applicant did not
appear on account of illness.
17. On 7 February 2002 the applicant"s
claim was left without consideration on account of his second failure to appear
at the hearing.
18. The Ostankinskiy District Court on 2 September 2002
quashed its ruling of 7 February 2002 on the grounds that the applicant had not
been notified about the hearing in due course. The court fixed a new hearing on
the merits for 23 September 2002. It appears that the hearing did not take
place.
19. On 21 October 2002 the applicant received notification that
the hearing was fixed for 5 November 2002. The applicant could not appear on
account of his illness and informed the court accordingly.
20. On an
unspecified date the case was transferred to another judge, on account of the
dismissal of the judge who had been dealing with the case. A preliminary hearing
was fixed for 17 April 2003.
21. The applicant attended the hearing on
the last mentioned date. However, the judge informed him that she did not have
his case file and did not know where it was. Following an unsuccessful two-hour
search for the case file the applicant was advised to leave. It later transpired
that one of the clerks in the court"s registry was in possession of the case
file as he had been preparing a reply to a complaint lodged by the
applicant.
22. On 24 June 2003 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 18
August 2003. However, preparation of the case was extended to 22 September 2003
because of the judge"s sick leave.
23. On 22 September 2003 a preliminary
hearing was fixed for 23 October 2003.
24. On 23 October 2003 the
applicant"s claims against each defendant were divided into four different sets
of proceedings. Hearings on the merits of all four claims were fixed for 26
December 2003.
25. The Ostankinskiy District Court partially granted the
applicant"s claim against the first defendant on 26 December 2003. As the court
received no confirmation that the other defendants had been properly notified of
the hearings, the hearings on the claims against them were postponed to 30
January 2004, 4 and 5 February 2004. By three judgments delivered on the
aforementioned dates, the court partially granted the applicant"s claims. The
judgments were not appealed against and entered into force.
Second set of
proceedings
26. On 27 January 2002 the applicant filed two applications
with the Supreme Court of Russia and the Moscow City Court respectively, seeking
authorisation to study case files related to previously lodged applications for
supervisory review of certain judgments concerning his civil claims. The
applications were refused on the ground that the legislation in force did not
provide for the possibility of studying case files related to applications for
supervisory review, since it was an extraordinary remedy. However, a reasoned
reply would be sent to the applicant after delivery of a decision.
27. On
3 March 2002 the applicant filed two complaints concerning the refusals with the
court. His complaints were rejected by a final ruling of the Moscow City Court
of 14 June 2002.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention
28. The applicant complained that the length of the first set of
proceedings had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement
provided 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..."
29. The
period to be taken into consideration began on 15 June 1998 and ended on 5
February 2004, when the last judgment concerning the applicant"s claim was
delivered. It thus lasted 5 years, 7 months and 20 days.
A.
Admissibility
30. In their first submissions before the Court the Government
maintained that the complaint was premature because the proceedings were still
pending.
31. Leaving aside the fact that the proceedings have now come to
an end, the Court recalls that according to the Convention organs" constant
case-law, complaints concerning length of procedure may be lodged before the
final termination of the proceedings in question (see, e.g., Todorov v. Bulgaria
(dec.), No. 39832/98, 6 November 2003).
32. The Court finds 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
33. The
Government submitted that the delays in the examination of the applicant"s
claims were caused by the defendants" failure to appear at the hearings, for
which the authorities could not be held responsible. Other delays had been
caused by the judges" participation in unrelated proceedings and the transfer of
the case from one judge to another.
34. The applicant contested the
Government"s statement. He contended that the civil proceedings were
unreasonably long because the domestic courts had failed to deal with his claims
diligently.
35. 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 criteria established by its case-law,
particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of 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).
36. The Court considers that the case was not
particularly difficult to determine. Consequently, it takes the view that an
overall period of more than five and a half years in one court instance could
not, in itself, be deemed to satisfy the "reasonable time" requirement in
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
37. As regards the conduct of the
applicant and the defendants the Court notes that between 15 June 1998 and 26
December 2003 no hearing on the merits of the applicant"s claims was held.
During this period the preliminary hearing fixed for 6 December 1999 was
postponed for about two months because of the defendants" failure to appear. For
the same reason the hearing on the merits fixed for 20 November 2000 was
postponed for about one month. The hearing fixed for 4 January 2002 was also
postponed for about one month on account of the parties" failure to appear,
which in the applicant"s case was caused by illness. In these circumstances the
Court does not find it established that the applicant"s conduct delayed the
proceedings in any significant way.
38. As regards the conduct of the
authorities the Court recalls that the case was repeatedly adjourned due to the
judges" participation in other proceedings and the transfer of the case from one
judge to another. Furthermore, delays occurred while the national courts settled
disputes of jurisdiction. The Court recalls that it is the States" duty to
organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet the
requirement of Article 6 § 1 (see Muti v. Italy, judgment of 23 March 1994,
Series A No. 281-C, § 15). In these circumstances the Court finds that the
significant delays which occurred in the present case are attributable to the
State.
39. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the
Court to conclude that the applicant"s case was not heard within a reasonable
time. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
40.
The applicant further complained of the fact that there was no court in Russia
to which application could be made to complain of the excessive length of
proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are
violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority
notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity."
A. Admissibility
41. The Court finds that this
complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been
established. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
42. The
Government submitted that the applicant had had an effective remedy against the
length of proceedings in the present case. In particular, after examining the
applicant"s complaints the Moscow City Court quashed a number of rulings by the
Ostankinskiy District Court which had left the applicant"s claim without
consideration. They further contended that the Ostankinskiy District Court had
taken appropriate measures to examine the applicant"s claim, which had resulted
in favourable judgments.
43. The applicant challenged the Government"s
arguments. He submitted that his complaints against the aforementioned rulings
had been directed at having his claims considered by a proper court, and that
quashing of the rulings had been of no relevance to the length of the
proceedings. He further contended that the Government had failed to indicate an
effective remedy that he had had at his disposal.
44. The Court
reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national
authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear
a case within a reasonable time (see {Kudla} v. Poland, No. 30210/96, § 156,
ECHR 2000-XI). Furthermore, the Court recalls that an effective remedy required
by Article 13 of the Convention is intended to be capable of either expediting
the proceedings or providing the applicant with adequate redress for delays that
have already occurred (see {Kudla} v. Poland cited above, §§ 157 - 159).
45. The Court finds that the quashing of rulings on various procedural issues
following complaints by the applicant was irrelevant for, let alone capable of,
expediting the proceedings or providing him with redress for the delays
occurred. Furthermore, the favourable outcome of the proceedings as such cannot
be considered to constitute adequate redress for their length (see, mutatis
mutandis, Byrn v. Denmark, No. 13156/87, Commission decision of 1 July 1992,
Decisions and Reports (DR) 74, p. 5). The Court notes that the Government did
not indicate any other remedy that could have expedited the determination of the
applicant"s case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had
already occurred (see Kormacheva
