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 >>
LARIONOV v. UKRAINE - 30741/08 [2011] ECHR 1908 (10 November 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1908.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 1908
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF LARIONOV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 30741/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10
November 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Larionov v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger,
judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 October 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an
application (no. 30741/08) 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, Mr Konstantin Aleksandrovich Larionov (“the
applicant”), on 12 June 2008.
2. The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
On
12 July 2010 the
President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance
with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a
Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1979 and lives in
Dnipropetrovsk.
On
6 June 2005 he lodged a civil claim with the Amur Nyzhnyodniprovskyy
District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”)
against three companies, by which he sought the cancellation of the
car purchase contract and claimed damages.
On
30 June 2010 the court partly allowed the claim.
On
8 November 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal
upheld the above judgment. On 16 March 2011 the Higher Specialized
Civil and Criminal Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the
case to the District Court for fresh examination, before which the
proceedings are still pending.
According
to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant
specified his claim on eight occasions. Nine hearings in the District
Court were adjourned, mainly due to the respondents’ absence or
upon their requests or due to the electricity blackouts in the court
premises. Following the respondents’ requests, the District
Court ordered five expert examinations, which lasted in total for
about three years and four months. The applicant additionally
informed that on 1 June 2011 the District Court ordered yet another
expert examination.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1
and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in his
case. The Court considers that above complaint falls to be examined
solely under Article 6 § 1, which reads, in so far as
relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil
rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing
within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The
Government contested that argument, stating that the examination of
the case had been complicated by the number of the expert
examinations and of the respondents and that the applicant had also
contributed to the overall length by specifying his claim.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 6 June 2005 and has
not yet ended. It has thus lasted more than six years for 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France
[GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
14. Turning
to the circumstances of the case, the Court observes that the
subject-matter of the litigation has not been complex. Nor can the
number of the respondents explain the complexity of the case. Even
though the case examination may have been complicated by six expert
examinations, the Court recalls that it is within the
competence of a court to decide whether or not to seek outside advice
(see Dulskiy v. Ukraine, no. 61679/00, § 71, 1 June
2006). As to the conduct of the applicant, his specifications of the
claim (see paragraph 8 above) may have somewhat contributed to the
overall duration of the case examination. However, this fact alone
does not explain that duration. On the other hand, the Court is of
the opinion that the proceedings have been mainly delayed by the
District Court (see paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 above). It thus concludes
that the main responsibility for the protracted length of the
proceedings has 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 Frydlender,
cited above; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine,
no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Moroz
and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02,
§ 62, 21 December 2006).
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 of the
Convention.
II. REMAINING
COMPLAINTS
17. The
applicant also complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 17 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about and on
account of the unfairness of the proceedings.
18. 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 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect
of non pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested this claim.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained non pecuniary damage on account of the violation
found. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him
EUR 600 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant made no claim under this head. Accordingly, 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 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, EUR 600 (six hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into the Ukrainian hryvnia 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Boštjan M.
Zupančič Deputy Registrar President
