Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 16.09.2010 «Дело Черничкин (Chernichkin) против России» [англ.]

scope of the notion "administration of justice". State liability for the damage caused by such procedural acts or failures to act, such as a breach of the reasonable length of court proceedings, could arise even in the absence of a final criminal conviction of a judge if the fault of the judge has been established in civil proceedings. The Constitutional Court emphasised, moreover, that the constitutional right to compensation by the State for the damage should not be tied in with the personal fault of a judge. An individual should be able to obtain compensation for any damage incurred through a violation by a court of his or her right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court held that Parliament should legislate on the grounds and procedure for compensation by the State for the damage caused by unlawful acts or failures to act of a court or a judge and determine territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over such claims.
17. The RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure (in force at the material time) established that a civil claim should be dismissed, by a single judge, in particular, if it was not amenable to examination in civil proceedings (Article 129 (1)) or if the court was not competent to examine it (Article 129 (7)).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

18. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied access to a court because the Moscow courts had refused to examine his claim against the Ministry of Finance. Article 6 in the relevant part provides as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."

A. Submissions by the parties

1. The Government

19. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies because he had not applied for supervisory review before lodging his application with the Court. Furthermore, he had not lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor General's Office about an alleged breach of law committed by any of the judges who had examined his claim against the Savings Bank. Finally, the applicant had not asked any judicial authorities to establish a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
20. In the Government's view, there was no violation of the applicant's right to a court. The domestic courts examined and dismissed the applicant's statement of claim because it contained defects and fell short of the requirements of substantive and procedural law. The Government maintained that the applicant had not attempted to correct those defects.

2. The applicant

21. The applicant pointed out that supervisory-review proceedings were not considered by the Court to be an effective remedy in the Russian legal system because of its discretionary nature. Similarly, a criminal complaint would not lead to the automatic institution of criminal proceedings, as the decision to institute them remained within the prosecutor's sole discretion. In any event, he did complain to the Prosecutor General's Office about the unlawful actions of the judges and prosecutors, but all of his complaints were rejected.
22. The applicant emphasised that the claim he had attempted to lodge against the Ministry of Finance had contained references to many procedural and substantive violations committed by the Tverskoy District and Moscow City Courts during the examination of his claim against the Savings Bank. The domestic courts may not have rejected his claim de plano for a lack of justification or insufficient evidence, as those were the issues to be determined in the judicial proceedings. The Basmanniy District Court's refusal to examine his

> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6