Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.09.2010 «Дело Васильченко (Vasilchenko) против России» [англ.]

his case should be calculated from 2 October 1998 to the present time as the award of RUB 500 in compensation of non-pecuniary damage remained unenforced.
40. The Court recalls that the applicant's claims that were decided in a judgment of 26 October 1998 and those that were decided in a judgment of 10 November 1999 were unrelated to each other. The two sets of claims were joined by the Garrison Court after supervisory review of the previous court decisions (see para. 13 above). In view of this situation the Court considers it necessary to calculate the total length separately for each set of claims. Accordingly, the Court observes that the first set of proceedings lasted from 2 October 1998 to 4 August 2004, with exception of the period from 7 December 1998 to 22 May 2001 when the case was subject to supervisory examination and not pending. Thus, the total length of examination of this case approximately amounts to three years and four months. The second set of proceedings lasted from 20 April 1999 to 4 August 2004, with exception of the period from 20 January 2000 to 22 May 2001. The total length for this case amounts approximately to three years and eleven months. In both cases the claims were examined four times at two levels of jurisdiction.
41. 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).
42. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the issues decided by the courts did not seem particularly complex and that this being a labour dispute, it required a particular diligence and expedition on the part of the authorities. It further observes that the parties have provided minimal information as to their behaviour in the proceedings. Thus, the information provided does not allow the Court to detect any substantial periods of the courts' inactivity.
43. Regard being had to the overall diligence displayed by the authorities and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the Court considers that the "reasonable time" requirement was not breached in the present case.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention
on account of non-enforcement

44. The applicant also complained that the continuing failure to enforce the judgment of 21 January 2002 in the part concerning payment of RUB 500 and the delayed enforcement of the remainder of the judgment of the same date and the judgment of 8 April 2004 breached his rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The relevant provisions read as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

Admissibility

45. The Government raised the argument concerning inapplicability of Article 6 to the present case taken as a whole that has been dealt with above (see para. 36 above). The Court therefore rejects this argument.
46. In respect of the

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7