ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2005<ДЕЛО РЫБАКОВ (rybakov) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF RYBAKOV v.
RUSSIA
(Application No. 14983/04)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg,
22.XII.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 Rybakov
v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mrs F.
Tulkens,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по
тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными
скобками.
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr D.
Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 December 2005,
Delivers the following
judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case
originated in an application (No. 14983/04) 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 Gennadiy Nikolayevich Rybakov ("the applicant"), on 27 March 2004.
2.
The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human
Rights.
3. On 13 December 2004 the Court decided to communicate the
application. 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 circumstances of the case
4. The applicant was born in 1936
and lives in Saint Petersburg.
1. Civil proceedings in the housing
dispute
5. On 12 August 1998 the applicant lodged a civil action before the
Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg against the Governor of St.
Petersburg and St. Petersburg committee for housing policy (Комитет по
жилищной политике г. Санкт-Петербург), seeking to
obtain a flat under a city-funded programme. A copy of the applicant"s statement
of claim bears a signature of the registry indicating that the statement was
received on 12 August 1998.
6. Of the three hearings fixed between 24
February and 21 October 1999, two hearings were adjourned due to the defendant"s
failure to appear and one hearing was postponed upon the defendant"s request to
join another party to the proceedings.
7. The next hearing, fixed for 16
March 2000, was adjourned to allow the applicant to amend his claims.
8.
Of the four hearings listed between 5 April 2000 and 28 February 2001, three
hearings were adjourned because the defendants did not attend and one hearing
was adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings.
9. On
15 March 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg held a hearing. A
representative of the Governor of St. Petersburg requested to adjourn the
proceedings in order to enable the Governor to amend the existing regulation
which affected the applicant"s housing rights. The request was granted.
10. Between 22 May 2001 and 28 March 2002 the district court fixed four
hearings. Three hearings were adjourned because the defendants did not attend
and one hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant to amend his claims.
11. On 8 April 2002 the applicant filed the amended claims.
12. The
hearing of 19 December 2002 was postponed until 1 April 2003 because the
defendants did not attend. The Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg sent
a written warning to the defendants, informing them that they would be fined if
they failed to attend the next hearing.
13. Three hearings fixed between
1 April and 17 June 2003 were adjourned because the defendants had not
attended.
14. The hearing of 14 October 2003 was rescheduled because the
presiding judge had been dismissed from her office.
15. The hearing fixed
for 5 May 2004 was adjourned because the defendants did not appear.
16.
The hearing of 5 July 2004 was adjourned because the applicant was ill.
17. On 29 September 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg gave
the judgment.
18. On 8 December 2004 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld
the judgment of 29 September 2004.
2. Applicant"s complaints about the
excessive
length of the proceedings
19. On 21 December 2002, 5
January and 9 November 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the
Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, a deputy President of the St.
Petersburg City Court and the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation about delays.
20. On 30 December 2002 and 10 February 2003 a
deputy President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg and on 25
March 2004 a deputy President of the St. Petersburg City Court informed the
applicant that the excessive length of the proceedings in his case had been
caused by a large number of pending civil cases.
THE LAW
I. Alleged
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
21. The applicant complained
that the length of the 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..."
A. Admissibility
22. The Government considered that the
applicant"s complaint about the length of the proceedings was inadmissible under
Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. As to the period to be taken into
consideration, the Government submitted that the proceedings had begun on 12
August 1998 when the applicant had filed his statement of claim and ended on 8
December 2004 with the final judgment of the St. Petersburg City Court.
23. The applicant contested the Government"s submissions. He insisted that he
had initiated the proceedings on 10 August 1998.
24. The Court agrees
with the Government that the period to be taken into consideration began on 12
August 1998 when the St. Petersburg City Court received the applicant"s
statement of claims and ended on 8 December 2004. The proceedings therefore
lasted six years, three months and twenty-eight days and came before courts of
two levels of jurisdiction.
25. The Court notes that the application 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
26. The Government
argued that the length of the proceedings may still be considered "reasonable"
and could be explained by the circumstances of the case. The presence of several
defendants in the proceedings and the need to examine the case thoroughly
rendered the proceedings extremely complex. The delays were caused by the
defendants" failure to attend the hearings and the applicant"s absence on 5 July
2004. The Government indicated, nevertheless, that the domestic law provided for
the right to give a default judgment. Furthermore, on several occasions the
applicant amended his claims and complained to various domestic officials about
the excessive length of the proceedings. As regards the conduct of the domestic
authorities, the Government submitted that there had been no periods of
inactivity attributable to them.
27. The applicant contested the
Government"s submissions. He argued that the case was not complex. He had
attended all hearings save for one. He could not be blamed for amending his
claims because he had been compelled to do so by the presiding judge. His
complaints to various domestic officials did not cause any delay because the
proceedings were never stayed at his request. The applicant claimed that the
excessive length of the proceedings had been caused by the transfer of the case
from one judge to another, by the defendants" absence and by the fact that the
courts had been overburdened.
28. 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).
29. The Court agrees with the Government that the proceedings
at issue were of some complexity as they required examination of voluminous
housing regulations enacted in St. Petersburg and concerned a complex factual
background. The applicant changed, amended and supplemented his claims on
several occasions. The Court considers that the task of the courts was rendered
more difficult by these factors, although it cannot accept that the complexity
of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of the
proceedings.
30. As to the applicant"s conduct, both parties agreed that
the applicant had not attended one hearing on 5 July 2004. Irrespective of the
reasons for his absence, the delay incurred therefrom was negligible. As to the
Government"s argument that the applicant contributed to the delay in the
proceedings by amending his claims and complaining to various officials, the
Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage
of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interest (see,
mutatis mutandis, {Yagci} and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series
A No. 319-A, § 66). The Court cannot conclude that the applicant contributed to
the prolongation of the proceedings.
31. The Court observes, however,
that substantial periods of inactivity, for which the Government have not
submitted any satisfactory explanation, are attributable to the domestic
authorities. It took the district court several months to fix hearings. For
example, a period of six months lapsed between the registration of the claim on
12 August 1998 and the first hearing of 24 February 1999. Between 28 March and
19 December 2002 no hearings appear to have been listed or held. Another delay
of approximately seven months was caused by the transfer of the case from one
judge to another, between 14 October 2003 and 5 May 2004. In this respect, the
Court recalls that 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, {Loffler} v. Austria, No. 30546/96, § 57, 3 October
2000). In addition, there were several shorter periods during which there was no
apparent progress in the case.
32. The Court furthermore notes that the
conduct of the defendants was one of the reasons for the prolongation of the
proceedings. In the Court"s opinion, the domestic authorities failed to take
adequate steps in order to ensure their attendance. The defendants defaulted on
at least thirteen occasions which resulted in a delay of approximately two years
and three months. There is no indication that the court reacted in any way to
that behaviour, save for sending warnings. In any case, the Court finds it
peculiar that after the defendants had received the courts" warning they did not
attend three subsequent hearings and the district court did not take any
measures. Accordingly, the Court considers that, the domestic courts did not
avail themselves of the measures available to them under national law to
discipline the participants to the proceedings and to ensure that the case be
heard within a reasonable time (see, mutatis mutandis, {Kusmierek} v. Poland,
No. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004). The Court also notes the Government"s
submission that the domestic courts could have given a default judgment.
33. Having regard to the overall length of the proceedings, and the
circumstances of the case, in particular, that the proceedings were pending for
approximately six years and one month before the first-instance court, the Court
concludes that the applicant"s case was not examined 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
34.
The applicant, invoking Article 1 of the Convention, further complained that all
his complaints about the excessive length of the proceedings had been futile.
The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of
the Convention which reads as follows:
"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."
35. The Government
contested the applicant"s arguments.
A. Admissibility
36. 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
37. 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 [GC], No. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). It notes that the Government
did not indicate any 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 v. Russia, No. 53084/99, 29 January 2004, §
64).
38. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there
has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a
remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling
upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as set
forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of
the Convention
39. 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
40. The applicant claimed
29,912 US dollars (USD) in respect of pecuniary damage, namely for the loss of
opportunity to acquire a flat at the price of 1998, and 7,000 euros (EUR)
