(Application no. 10792/04)
28 May 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 Nesterova v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 May 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. First set of proceedings
1. Trial and appeal
2. Retrial and appeal
During this period the applicant challenged the judges in charge of her case at least five times and the case was transferred to other judges. She also challenged the court minutes several times (in particular, she successively challenged the court minutes of 25 February and 7 and 25 March 2002, but to no avail).
3. Second retrial and appeals
B. Second set of proceedings
C. Third set of proceedings
I. LENGTH OF THE FIRST SET OF PROCEEDINGS
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The period in question ended on 26 September 2005. The ensuing proceedings shall not be taken into account as the extraordinary review procedure is not a remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kozak v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21291/02, 17 December 2002). The period in question thus lasted eight years and seventeen days at three levels of jurisdiction.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
In her letter of 15 December 2007 the applicant, referring to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, challenged the outcome of the first set of proceedings. She also contended that the courts had not been impartial when examining her case in those proceedings.
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 800 (eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10 (ten euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at 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 amounts 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 28 May 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
1 About EUR 11.