CASE OF SVETLANA ORLOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 4487/04)
30 July 2009
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 Svetlana Orlova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 July 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. First examination of the case
B. Supervisory review and second examination of the case
13. On 4 March 2003 the Supreme Court replied to the applicant that there were no grounds to refer her case to a different court.
C. Third examination of the case
D. Supervisory review and fourth examination of the case
The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of 2 July 2003, as upheld on 8 August 2003, was unlawful and had to be quashed. It further held that the case had to be examined anew by a court situated in a different region and referred the case to the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar (“the District Court”).
E. Supervisory review and fifth examination of the case
The Presidium quashed the judgment of 1 March 2006, as upheld on 4 April 2006, and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination.
F. Sixth examination of the case
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The relevant part of Article 6 of the Convention provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
Article 13 of the Convention 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.”
1. Period to be considered
(a) between 17 July and 18 September 2001 (2 months and 2 days);
(b) between 25 November 2002 and 8 August 2003 (8 months and 12 days);
(c) between 7 October 2005 and 4 April 2006 (5 months and 27 days);
(d) and between 17 October 2007 and 6 May 2008 (6 months and 19 days).
2. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“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.”
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(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 2,100 (two thousand one 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić