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 >>
VASYLIV v. UKRAINE - 8008/05 [2011] ECHR 83 (20 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/83.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 83
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF
VASYLIV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 8008/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 January
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vasyliv v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 8008/05) 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, Ms Yevdokiya Grygorivna Vasyliv (“the applicant”),
on 8 February 2005.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
On
24 November 2009 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 1928 and lives in Stryy, the Lviv Region.
1. First set of proceedings
On
18 March 2004 the applicant lodged a claim with the Stryy Court
against the State Social Protection Department and the State Pension
Fund for recovery of a yearly allowance, compensation for
non-pecuniary damage and for re-calculation of her pension.
On
23 June 2004 the Stryy Court rejected the applicant’s claims as
unsubstantiated. On 12 August 2004 the Stryy Court rejected the
applicant’s request for interpretation of the judgment.
On
4 October 2004 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment
of 23 June 2004 and remitted the case for new consideration.
On
28 October 2004 the parties appealed in cassation. The applicant had
to re-lodge her appeal in cassation as she had initially failed to
comply with procedural requirements.
On
2 March 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the case for consideration
to the Higher Administrative Court.
On
11 February 2009 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the
parties’ appeals in cassation.
On
1 April 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request
for extraordinary review of the decision of 11 February 2009.
The
case is currently pending before the first-instance court.
In
the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court and
court of appeal there were seventeen hearings held. The applicant
supplemented her claims on two occasions. She lodged requests for
rectification of the hearing records, for studying the case-file, for
obtaining additional evidence and for interpretation of the judgment.
2. Second set of proceedings
In
October 2004 the applicant and her daughter instituted defamation
proceedings before the Stryy Court against the State Pension Fund and
S., a private person.
On
1 December 2004 the Stryy Court left the claim without examination
for the claimants’ failure to substantiate it and to pay the
court fee.
On
28 February 2005 and 10 September 2007, respectively, the Lviv
Regional Court of Appeal and the Khmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal
(acting as a court of cassation) upheld the decision of 1 December
2004.
3. Third
set of proceedings
In
December 2004 the applicant and two other persons lodged with the
Lychakiv Court an administrative claim against the Lviv Regional
State Administration, alleging incorrect calculation of their pension
and unlawfulness of the claim for debts issued by the local gas
supplying company.
On
14 February 2005 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv found that the
claim did not fall to be examined in the framework of the
administrative procedure and was to be dealt under the rules of civil
procedure. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim.
On
18 April 2005 and 23 August 2006 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal
and the Higher Administrative Court, respectively, upheld the
decision of 14 February 2005.
On
24 October 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s
request for extraordinary review of the ruling of 23 August 2006.
4. Fourth set of proceedings
In
April 2005 the applicant and her daughter instituted defamation
proceedings in the Stryy Court against the State Pension Fund and S.,
a private person.
On
20 May 2005 the Stryy Court left the claim without examination for
the claimants’ failure to pay the court fee.
On
18 July 2005 and 25 October 2007, respectively, the Lviv Regional
Court of Appeal and the Khmetlnytsk Regional Court of Appeal (acting
as a court of cassation) upheld the decision of 20 May 2005.
THE LAW
I. THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
The
applicant complained that the length of the first set of proceedings
was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement,
laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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...”
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
applicant complained that the length of the first set of the
proceedings was excessive.
The
Government submitted that the issue examined by the domestic courts
was complex in itself and had been also complicated by the
applicant’s additional claims. They further maintained that the
applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by lodging
requests and appeals often not in accordance with the procedural
requirements. The Government admitted that
there had been delays caused by the high workload of the Supreme
Court. Nevertheless, the issue was promptly and effectively tackled
by the introduction of changes into the Judiciary Act allowing civil
cases to be examined in cassation by courts of appeal.
The
Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on
20 March 2004 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted over six
years and a half.
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).
Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the
proceedings in question concern the determination of the applicant’s
right to pension and social security allowance, her main income. They
are of obvious importance to the applicant and require the courts to
deal with it with particular diligence.
The
Court observes that a significant delay of approximately four years
and three months was caused by the lengthy examination of the
applicant’s appeal in cassation (see paragraphs 8-10 above).
The allegedly high workload of the Supreme Court cannot justify it,
in particular given the subject-matter of the case. In such
circumstances the Court finds that State
authorities bear the primary responsibility for the excessive length
of the proceedings in the present case.
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, §
49-53, 6 September 2005; and Vashchenko
v. Ukraine, no. 26864/03, § 50,
26 June 2008).
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. THE COMPLAINT OF LACK OF EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC REMEDIES
The
applicant complained of lack of effective remedies in respect of her
complaint concerning the length of the first set of proceedings. She
relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as
relevant, as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The
Government made no comments on this complaint.
The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI).
Having
regard to its well-established case-law on the matter, the Court
finds that in the present case there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy in
respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention about the length of the proceedings (see Efimenko
v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 64, 18 July 2006).
III. OTHER
COMPLAINTS
The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of unfairness
of the proceedings in her case. She also complained under Articles 6
and 13 of the Convention of lack of access to a court on account of
the outcome of the second, third and fourth sets of proceedings. The
applicant finally alleged that the State authorities had violated her
right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
In
the light of the materials in its possession, the Court finds that
the applicant’s complaints do not disclose any appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its
Protocols.
It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. 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 36,250.54 Ukrainian hryvnias
(UAH) in respect of pecuniary and EUR 20,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested these claims.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 800 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed UAH 60
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
UAH 943
for those incurred before the Court.
The
Government submitted that only part of the applicant’s claims
was supported by copies of relevant documents. They also contended
that the remainder of the claim was not related to the examination of
the case by the Court.
The
Court notes that the applicant provided relevant supporting documents
in respect of the amount of EUR 78 which she had spent for
corresponding with the Court and for translation and making copies of
the relevant documents. It therefore awards the applicant this amount
for costs and expenses.
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
1. Declares the complaints
under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning
the length of the first set of proceedings and lack of an effective
remedy in that respect admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
51. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR
800 (eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR
78 (seventy-eight euros) for costs and expenses, plus any tax that
may be chargeable, to be converted into the national currency of the
respondent State 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 amounts 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 20 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
