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 >>
CHUBAKOVA v. UKRAINE - 17674/05 [2010] ECHR 226 (18 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/226.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 226
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF
CHUBAKOVA v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 17674/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
February 2010
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 Chubakova v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 26 January 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 17674/05) 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 Nina Georgiyevna
Chubakova (“the applicant”), born in 1937 and living in
Mykolayiv, on 5 May 2005.
The
applicant was represented by Mr V. Stulnikov, a lawyer practising in
Mykolayiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On 10 November 2008 the Court decided to give notice of
the application to the Government. It also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In
January 1999 the applicant brought an action with the Korabelnyy
District Court of Mykolayiv against several companies (the successors
of her former employer) seeking compensation for damage to her health
inflicted at work.
On
11 April 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s action
against the respondents and ordered the Social Insurance Fund to make
certain monthly insurance payments to the applicant with their
further recalculation.
On
20 October 2005 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal partly changed
the above judgment by increasing the amounts of monthly payments and
ordering the Social Insurance Fund to pay the applicant certain
amounts in arrears.
On
4 January 2006 the applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme
Court. After she had rectified her appeal on 27 February 2006 and the
District Court had sent the case file to the Supreme Court on 21
April 2006, the latter took the case for examination. On 4 October
2007 the Supreme Court forwarded the appeal in cassation to the
Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, which on 26 November 2007, acting
as a court of cassation, rejected it as unsubstantiated.
In
the course of the proceedings, the applicant modified her claim on
four occasions, lodged about ten procedural requests and lodged
several appeals which were not in accordance with procedural
requirements or requested the courts to extend the time-limits for
lodging them. Of fifty-seven hearings, one hearing was adjourned due
to the applicant’s failure to attend it, two hearings following
her requests that they be adjourned, and one due to both parties’
failure to attend it. The above delays on the applicant’s part
protracted the proceedings to approximately seven months.
Furthermore, ten hearings were adjourned due to the sickness or
absence of a judge and twenty-six due to the respondents’ or
experts’ failure to attend them or the respondents’
requests to adjourn them, or for other reasons (public holidays, end
of working day, and so on). The case was twice remitted for fresh
consideration and four expert examinations were ordered by the
domestic courts.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
Relying
on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained
that the length of the proceedings in her case was not reasonable.
The above provision reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair
... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began
in January 1999 and ended on 26 November 2007. The proceedings
therefore lasted eight years and ten months at three levels of
jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
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
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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
The
Court considers that the complexity of the case and the conduct of
the applicant, who somewhat contributed to the length of the
proceedings (see § 8 above), cannot explain their overall
length. It finds that a number of delays (four expert examinations,
the repeated adjournments of the hearings due to the absence of the
judge, experts or respondents, two remittals of the case for fresh
consideration and the fact that the applicant’s appeal in
cassation remained unexamined before the Supreme Court for
approximately one and a half year) were attributable to the domestic
courts. The Court concludes that the main responsibility for the
protracted length of the proceedings rested with the State.
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, for instance, Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine,
no. 70767/01, §§ 49-50, 6 September 2005; Moroz and
Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 60, 21 December
2006; and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 50,
1 February 2007).
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. It
finds 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 violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention.
II. REMAINDER OF THE COMPLAINTS
The
applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
about the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings in her case. She
further invoked Articles 1, 2, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention,
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in
respect of the same complaint.
Having
carefully examined the applicant’s submissions in the light of
all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters
complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do
not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms
set out in the Convention.
It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
§§ 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 6,840,368.72
Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) for pecuniary damage including compensation
for damage to her health. In addition, she asked the Court to
indicate in its judgment that UAH 16,452.42
be paid to her on a monthly basis by the Social Insurance Fund
(allegedly owed to her and not recognised by the domestic courts), to
determine 85% of her disability and to set additional allowances. She
further claimed UAH 1,898,437.50
for non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government disagreed.
As
regards the claim for pecuniary damage and additional claims, the
Court does not discern any causal link between
the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged and, therefore,
rejects these claims. On the other hand, the Court notes that
the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and
awards her EUR 2,100 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant claimed UAH 535.34
in costs for the proceedings before the courts, without any further
specification or supporting documents.
The
Government contested this claim.
In
the present case, regard being had to the information in its
possession, the Court makes no award under this head.
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 under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention about unreasonable length of the proceedings
admissible and the remainder of the complaints 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 2,100 (two
thousand one hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Ukrainian hryvnias 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 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 18 February 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
