European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF VORONINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 42139/05,, 4014/06, 6331/06, 41170/06, 43842/06

and 22926/07)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

30 June 2016

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision

 




In the case of Voronina and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Helena Jäderblom, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

3.  Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration in case no. 4014/06, the Court considers that the proposed declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of this application. The declaration is therefore rejected.

THE FACTS

4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

8.  The Government claimed that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies available to them before and after the adoption of the pilot judgement Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009).

9.  As regards the domestic remedies existing prior to the adoption of the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its previous finding that at the time when the applicants brought their applications to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see Meshcheryakov v. Russia, no. 24564/04, § 36, 3 February 2011 with references therein, and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).

10.  As regards the domestic remedy introduced in response to the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see, for similar reasoning, Fateyenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 44099/04 et al., 18 February 2016, with further references). In line with this principle, the Court decides to proceed with the examination of the present cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Utyuzhnikova v. Russia, no. 25957/03, §§ 48-52, 7 October 2010; compare with Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 26716/09, § 32, 23 September 2010) and, accordingly, dismisses the Government’s non-exhaustion objection.

11.  The Government also submitted, in respect of application no. 41170/06, that the applicant in the case could no longer claim to be a victim of the violation of his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they stressed that a Russian court acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s right to have his case examined within a reasonable time and awarded him 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 800 euros in compensation). The Court accepts that the Russian courts acknowledged, in substance, a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the length of the civil proceedings in his case. However, the redress awarded to him by the Russian courts was insufficient and manifestly unreasonable having regard to the Court’s case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 204, ECHR 2006-V, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, §§ 38-39, 20 February 2014 and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 70-79, 17 December 2009) and taking into account the absence of a reasonable relation of proportionality between the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant and the circumstances of the case and the domestic courts’ reasoning in making the award. As the second condition - appropriate and sufficient redress - has not been fulfilled, the Court finds that the applicant in case no. 41170/06 may still claim to be a “victim” of a breach of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the civil proceedings. Accordingly, this objection by the Government must be dismissed.

12.  Turning to the examination of the present cases, 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

13.  In the leading case of Kormacheva v. Russia (no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

14.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

15.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

16.  Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

17.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

18.  It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19.  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.”

20.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Rubtsova v. Russia, no. 22554/04, §§ 30, 52, 13 January 2011, Vokhmina v. Russia, no. 26384/02, §§ 26, 37, 9 June 2005 and Plemyanova v. Russia, no. 27865/06, §§ 27, 39, 15 October 2009), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. No awards should be made in respect of applications nos. 41170/06 and 22926/07 in view of the facts that the applicants did not submit just-satisfaction claims within the period established by the Court.

21.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 4014/06 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the submitted unilateral declaration;

 

3.  Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 42139/05, 6331/06, 41170/06 and 22926/07 inadmissible;

 

4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;

 

5.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Hasan Bakırcı                                                              Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar                                                                   President




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration	Representative name and location	Start of proceedings	End of proceedings	Total length Levels of jurisdiction	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	42139/05 26/10/2005	Svetlana Viktorovna VORONINA 30/04/1958		26/11/2001	20/06/2005	3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 26 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction	1,600
2.	4014/06 14/01/2006	Aleksandr Sergeyevich LEGKOV 24/09/1953		02/02/2000	05/10/2006	6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)  2 level(s) of jurisdiction	3,000
3.	6331/06 14/12/2005	Avgustin Aleksandrovich GURNOV 12/08/1946		05/05/2000	15/03/2007	6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction	3,900
4.	41170/06 18/08/2006	Roman Grigoryevich KHIZVER 26/06/1942		30/12/2002	04/03/2010	7 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 5 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
5.	43842/06 23/11/2004	Aleksandr Fedorovich SHCHIGOLEV 06/09/1961	Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar	05/05/1998	07/04/2005	6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 3 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction	3,900
6.	22926/07 17/04/2007	Aleksey Niukolayevich NIKISHIN 15/06/1972		11/12/2002	10/11/2006	3 year(s) and 11 month(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

 

 




---

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.