European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Regina Antonovna KURYANOVICH v Russia - 21670/07 [2010] ECHR 792 (6 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/792.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 792
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
21670/07
by Regina Antonovna KURYANOVICH
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 2007,
Having regard to the Court's decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the Court's decision to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Regina Antonovna Kuryanovich, is a Russian national who was born in 1917 and lives in St. Petersburg. The respondent Government are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. Circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant broke her leg while entering a lift which had stopped below the floor level. On 4 September 2002 she sued a maintenance company for damages.
On 12 September 2002 the Vyborgskiy District Court of St. Petersburg received the applicant's statement of claim.
The parties were summoned to the court for negotiations on 30 January, 19 June and 18 September 2003. On the latter date the applicant submitted to the court detailed calculations with respect to the damages claimed.
On 8 November 2003 the Vyborgskiy District Court scheduled the hearing for 17 November 2003, which was then postponed to 1 December 2003.
On 1 December 2003 the Vyborgskiy District Court ordered a medical examination of the applicant.
On 25 March 2004 the Vyborgskiy District Court requested the applicant's medical documents from the relevant medical institutions.
On 12 May 2004 the medical documents were transmitted to the St. Petersburg Forensic Bureau together with the case file.
On 5 July 2004 the case file was returned to the Vyborgskiy District Court without the examination having been conducted. It was then re-transmitted to the Forensic Bureau.
On 1 September 2004 the Forensic Bureau returned the case file to the Vyborgskiy District Court. It informed the court that the examination had been conducted. However, the expert report could only be sent to the court upon the payment of the invoice for the examination which on 27 May 2004 had been sent to the judicial department of the Supreme Court of Russia, responsible for execution of such payments.
Between September 2004 and February 2005 the Vyborgskiy District Court repeatedly contacted the judicial department with a view to secure the payment for the expert examination.
On 17 February 2005 the Forensic Bureau sent to the Vyborgskiy District Court the expert report having stated that the payment still had not been made.
On 21 February 2005 the Vyborgskiy District Court resumed the proceedings and scheduled the hearing for 13 April 2005. The hearing was postponed to 18 April 2005 due to the prosecutor's failure to appear. The hearing of 18 April 2005 was postponed due to the applicant's illness and the defendant's failure to appear. The subsequently scheduled hearing of 25 April 2005 was postponed due to the applicant's failure to appear.
On 16 May 2005 the Vyborgskiy District Court granted the applicant's claim in part.
On 12 October 2005 the St. Petersburg City Court quashed the decisions and remitted the case for a new examination.
On 1 November 2005 the Vyborgskiy District Court scheduled the hearing for 24 November 2005. On that date the hearing was postponed to 19 December 2005 due to the defendant's failure to appear.
On 19 December 2005 the District Court granted the applicant's claim in part.
On 2 March 2006 the appeal proceedings were adjourned as the respondent's representative failed to submit his power of attorney. On 7 April 2006 the District Court allowed the defendant's motion to extend the time-limit for appeal.
On 5 May 2006 the St. Petersburg City Court quashed the first instance court judgment and remitted it for a fresh examination.
On 21 August 2006 the Vyborgskiy District Court ordered an expert examination with respect to the operation of the lift and the circumstances that led to the applicant's injury.
On 19 September 2006 the expert centre returned the case-file to the Vyborgskiy District Court on the ground that it did not have experts competent to give an opinion on the questions put by the court.
On 13 November 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The court found that the maintenance company had not been responsible for the lift's malfunction which led to the applicant's injury.
On 6 February 2007 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld that judgment.
B. The Government's unilateral declaration
By a letter of 22 July 2009 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration. The relevant parts of the declaration read as follows:
“I, Georgy Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, hereby declare that the Russian authorities acknowledge the excessive length of court proceedings [i]n the case of the applicant.
The authorities are ready to pay the applicant ex gratia a sum of EUR 2 000 as just satisfaction.
The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court's list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. She also alleged that the domestic courts had violated the principle of the equality of arms and had accepted inadmissible evidence.
THE LAW
Article 6 provides, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Government submitted the unilateral declaration quoted above stating that they were prepared to acknowledge the violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of the proceedings in which she had been involved. They also proposed a payment to the applicant of EUR 2,000 as just satisfaction. Having regard to the foregoing, the Government invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The applicant's only comment consisted of inciting the Court to expedite the decision process as regards the award of just satisfaction.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
As the Court stated in Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2003 VI, a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly-settlement proceedings and, on the other, unilateral declarations – such as the present declaration – made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court. In accordance with Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court will proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declarations and the parties' observations submitted outside the framework of any friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties' statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement.
The Court considers that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, § 75; Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, § 22, 14 November 2006).
The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Article 6 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 33-39, 9 June 2005 and Svetlana Orlova v. Russia, no. 4487/04, §§ 42-52, 30 July 2009). Where the Court has found a breach of this provision it has awarded just satisfaction, the amount of which depended on the particular features of the case.
As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration made by the Government, the Court notes, in the first place, that the present application concerns an issue which has already been examined by the Court in numerous cases.
Further, the Court observes that, having acknowledged in their unilateral declaration that the domestic proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy, the Government offered the applicant redress in the form of monetary compensation of EUR 2,000. The Court considers that the sum proposed in the declaration bears a reasonable relationship to the amounts awarded by the Court for non-pecuniary damage in similar cases.
Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the Government established a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of this aspect of the case at hand (see Spółka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
That being so, the Court accepts the Government's request and decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The Court has examined those complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols other then those examined above. Accordingly, these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaint about the excessive length of proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren
Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President