(Application no. 30741/08)
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,
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:
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
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.
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.
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, 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;
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