British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
SAFYANNIKOVA v. UKRAINE - 31580/03 [2007] ECHR 650 (26 July 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/650.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 650
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF SAFYANNIKOVA v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 31580/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26
July 2007
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 Safyannikova v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M.
Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and
Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 July 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 31580/03) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Ukrainian national, Mrs Lyudmyla Ivanivna Safyannikova (“the
applicant”), on 24 September 2003.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
On
5 April 2006 the Court
decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the
proceedings to the Government. 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
The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Konotop, Sumy
region.
On
15 October 1998 the Konotop Court, following the request of Mrs P.G.,
instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on a charge of
minor bodily injuries.
On
17 February 1999 the applicant brought similar counter-charges
against Mrs P.G. and Mrs P. V.
On
17 November 2000 the Konotop Court acquitted the applicant, Mrs P.G.
and Mrs P.V.
On
19 December 2000 the Sumy Regional Court (herinafter “the
Regional Court”), upon Mrs P.G.'s cassation appeal, quashed
this decision in part concerning the applicant's acquittal and
remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The Regional Court held
that the first instance court had failed to examine all the factual
circumstances of the case.
On
23 March 2001 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and
sentenced her to six months' imprisonment and UAH 200
fine (suspended as time-barred).
On
26 April 2001 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted
the case for a fresh consideration on the ground that the instance
court erred in calculation of the statutory time-limit for the
sanction.
On
13 June 2001 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and
sentenced her to six months' imprisonment and UAH 200 fine (suspended
as time-barred).
On
11 October 2001 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the
Court of Appeal”) upheld this decision.
On
19 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed all previous decisions on
the ground of serious procedural violations by the first instance
court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
On
29 November 2002 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and
sentenced her to 180 hours of public work (suspended under the
Amnesty Act). It also ordered the applicant to pay Mrs P.G. UAH 977
in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
On
18 February and 15 July 2003 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court, respectively, upheld this decision.
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 ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 15 October 1998 and
ended on 15 July 2003. It thus lasted four years and nine months for
three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Government submitted no observations on the admissibility of the
applicant's complaints.
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 domestic courts considered the case
without substantial delays, and that the protracted length of the
proceedings was primarily due to the applicant's repetitive challenge
to their judgments.
The
applicant considered that the proceedings had not been conducted with
sufficient diligence.
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 (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
The Court considers that the case was not particularly
complex, either factually or legally. Moreover, the Court is not
persuaded by the Government's argument that the applicant should be
reproached for having appealed against unfavourable judgments, the
more so since three of her four appeals were upheld by the higher
courts. As regards the conduct of the domestic judicial
authorities, the Court notes that the protracted length of the
proceedings was mainly due to the repetitive re-examination of the
case despite its relative simplicity.
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 Pélissier and Sassi, cited
above, Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004
and Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, 8 November 2005).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
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 Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention about the outcome and unfairness of the proceedings in her
case.
However,
in the light of all the materials in its possession, 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 declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
§§ 1, 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 UAH 25,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government contended that the applicant's claim
was exorbitant and unsubstantiated.
Having
regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the
finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 81 for the expenses incurred in the
context of the proceedings before the Court.
The
Government contested the claim.
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
considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 81.
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 81 (eighty
one euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date
of 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 26 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
