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 >>
TITARENKO v. RUSSIA - 25966/04 [2011] ECHR 443 (10 March 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/443.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 443
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF TITARENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 25966/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 March
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Titarenko v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
committee composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 February 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 25966/04) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr Aleksandr Petrovich
Titarenko and Mrs Galina Kirillovna Titarenko (“the
applicants”), on 7 June 2004.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
On
23 September 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with
Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants were born in 1954 and live in Moscow.
A. Labour dispute
On
5 October 2001 the applicants sued the Nefron association
seeking conclusion of employment contracts.
The
Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”)
scheduled the first hearing for 21 February 2002. Between 21 February
2002 and 17 June 2003 one hearing was held as planned. Six scheduled
hearings did not take place due to the respondent’s default in
appearance or requests for adjournment, three hearings had to be
postponed following the applicants’ failure to appear or
requests for adjournment, and three hearings could not proceed as
both parties either failed to submit evidence or to show in court
altogether.
On
17 June 2003 the District Court considered that the applicants no
longer intended to pursue their civil action and decided to strike
the case out of its list.
On
7 August 2003 the applicants asked the court to reinstate the case to
its list claiming that they had not been able to appear at the
hearings because the first applicant had been undergoing hospital
treatment.
On
9 September 2003 the District Court quashed its earlier decision and
reinstated the case to its list. The next hearing was scheduled for
3 November 2003. Between 3 November 2003 and 12 July 2004 five
hearings were held as planned, whereas five other hearings were
postponed due to the fault of the respondent, two for the applicants’
failure to appear, and two others for both parties’ default.
On
12 July 2004 the District Court again considered that the applicants
no longer intended to pursue their civil action and decided to strike
the case out of its list.
On
22 December 2004 the applicants asked the court to reinstate the case
to its list. On 19 January 2005 the District Court quashed its
decision of 12 July 2004 after finding that the applicants had not
been duly notified of certain unspecified hearings and resumed the
proceedings. The next hearing was scheduled for 31 January 2005.
The
hearing of 31 January 2005 was adjourned as the respondent did not
appear.
On
16 February and 10 March 2005 the hearings were held as planned.
On
11 March 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicants’
claims in full.
On
8 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
B. Pension dispute
On
an unspecified date the first applicant sued the Military Commission
of Moscow for recalculation of his pension.
On
14 July 2006 the Justice of the Peace of the 384th Court Circuit of
the Meshchanskiy District of Moscow dismissed his claims.
On
25 October 2006 the Meshchankiy District Court of Moscow upheld the
judgment on appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The
applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of
excessive length of the labour dispute. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 6, the relevant part of which reads as
follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
The
Government noted that the application had been lodged a year prior to
the final adjudication of the dispute at the domestic level and
requested that the complaint be declared inadmissible in accordance
with Article 35 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.
The
Court observes that, as it has found on many occasions previously,
the period covered by the reasonable time guarantee in a particular
case runs until the judgment is given by the Court (see, among
others, Bordikov v. Russia, no. 921/03,
8 October 2009; Polonskiy v. Russia,
no. 30033/05, 19 March 2009). Therefore, it rejects the
Government’s argument.
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
Government submitted that the case had been complex due to its
voluminous materials and several witness examinations. They further
argued that the applicants had not displayed due interest in the
proceedings failing to appear in court for scheduled hearings, and
had lodged multiple procedural motions further delaying the progress
of the case.
The
applicants maintained their complaint.
The
Court observes that the proceedings in the applicants’ case
commenced on 5 October 2001 and ended on 8 June 2005. Having regard
to the fact that the proceedings were not pending between 17 June and
9 September 2003 and between 12 July 2004 and 19 January 2005
following the trial court’s decisions to leave the case without
consideration, their aggregate length amounted approximately to two
years and eleven months.
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).
The
Court considers that the present case was not particularly difficult
to determine, having involved a single civil claim of employment
nature.
Turning
to the applicants’ conduct, the Court observes that in the
course of the proceedings they did not appear in court or requested
adjournment of the hearings on five occasions, and on other five
occasions they defaulted together with the respondent or failed to
submit the required evidence thwarting the progress of the case.
Consequently, it takes the view that the largest part of the delay is
attributable to the applicants.
Having
regard to the behaviour of the authorities, the Court accepts that
the trial court’s defective notification of the applicants on
one occasion led to an interruption in the proceedings (see para. 11
above) and reiterates that the employment nature of the dispute
required particular diligence on the part of the court (Ruotolo v.
Italy, 27 February 1992, § 17, Series A no. 230 D).
It is also mindful of the fact that the District Court did not avail
themselves of the measures available to them under national law to
discipline the defaulting respondent (see Sokolov v. Russia,
no. 3734/02, § 40, 22 September 2005).
However,
in the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the
applicants’ contribution to the length of the proceedings
identified above was so serious as to warrant the conclusion that the
“reasonable time” requirement was not breached.
Accordingly,
there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The
first applicant also complained under Article 6 and 13 of the
Convention of incorrect application of the domestic law by the courts
in the second dispute concerning his pension allowance.
The
Court notes that the applicant essentially complains about the
outcome of the dispute. It recalls that,
in principle, it is not its task to act by calling into question the
outcome of the domestic proceedings. The domestic courts are best
placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in the
case and for interpreting and applying rules of substantive and
procedural law (see Pekinel v. Turkey, no. 9939/02, § 53,
18 March 2008). Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the complaint concerning length of the
proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 March 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President
