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

4 of the Convention.
53. 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

54. The Court notes firstly that the complaint under Article 13 in respect of non-enforcement cannot be considered as arguable in absence of an arguable claim under the substantive provision (see para. 49 above). On the contrary, it considers the complaint under Article 13 in respect of the length of the proceedings arguable, even though it did not discern a violation of the applicant's right to a trial within reasonable time above.
55. The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy introduced by the federal laws N 68-ФЗ and N 69-ФЗ in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (No. 2) (No. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...). These statutes, which entered into force on 4 May 2010, set up a new remedy which enables those concerned to seek compensation for the damage sustained as a result of unreasonable length of the proceedings (see para. 28 above).
56. The Court observes that in the present case the parties' observations in respect of Article 13 arrived before 4 May 2010 and did not contain any references to the new legislative development. However, it accepts that as of 4 May 2010 the applicant has had a right to use the new remedy (see paragraph 29 above).
57. The Court recalls that in the pilot judgment cited above it stated that it would be unfair to request the applicants, whose cases had 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 (Burdov (No. 2), cited above, § 144). In line with this principle, the Court decided to examine the present application on its merits and found no violation of the substantive provision of the Convention.
58. However, the fact of examination of the present case on its merits should in no way be interpreted as prejudging the Court's assessment on the quality of the new remedy. It will examine this question in other cases more suitable for this analysis. It does not consider the present case as such, particularly in view of the fact that the parties' observations were made with account of the situation that had existed before the introduction of the new remedy.
59. Having regard to these special circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to continue a separate examination of the complaint under Article 13 in the present case.

IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention

60. Referring to Articles 1, 6, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention the applicant further complained about the outcome of the proceedings in his case and certain irregularities that had allegedly occurred during the examination of the case.
61. Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaint concerning unreasonable length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings;
3. Holds that there is no need for separate examination of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7