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
1.  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.
3.  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
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.
5.  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.
6.  On 30 June 2010 the court partly allowed the claim.
7.  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.
8.  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
9.  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 ...”
10.  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.
11.  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
12.  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
13.  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.
15.  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).
16.  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.
19.  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
20.  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
21.  The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
22.  The Government contested this claim.
23.  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
24.  The applicant made no claim under this head. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under this head.
C.  Default interest
25.  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
1.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  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;

4.  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