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

claim had been in breach of the constitutional requirements and Article 6 of the Convention.

B. Admissibility

23. The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court reiterates firstly that supervisory review in civil proceedings under Russian law is not an effective remedy to be exhausted (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), No. 47033/99, 22 June 1999, and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), No. 33408/03, 6 May 2004). Secondly, it observes that there was no allegation of criminally reprehensible conduct on the part of the judges who had examined the applicant's claim against the Savings Bank and that the institution of criminal proceedings was not a condition precedent for the examination of the applicant's claim for damages caused by the allegedly excessive length of civil proceedings. Finally, the Court notes that the existence and extent of any such damages were precisely the issues to be determined in the proceedings which the applicant had unsuccessfully sought to institute. It follows that the Government's objection is without merit on all three counts and that it must be dismissed.
24. 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.

C. Merits

25. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. In this way, that provision embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only; however, it is an aspect that makes it in fact possible to benefit from the further guarantees laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 6 (see Sergey Smirnov v. Russia, No. 14085/04, § 25, 22 December 2009, and Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, No. 48140/99, § 45, 10 January 2006).
26. The "right to a court" is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations. The Court must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access afforded to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of that right is impaired. Furthermore, the Court underlines that a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 unless it pursues a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved (see Sergey Smirnov, cited above, §§ 26 - 27; Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, No. 73547/01, § 58, 26 July 2005; and Kreuz v. Poland, 19 June 2001, No. 28249/95, §§ 54 and 55, ECHR 2001-VI).
27. Finally, the Court further reiterates that it is not its task to take the place of the domestic courts. It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see {Societe} Anonyme Sotiris and Nikos Koutras Attee v. Greece, No. 39442/98, § 17, ECHR 2000-XII).
28. In the instant case the applicant attempted to sue the Russian treasury for the damage caused by the allegedly excessive length of civil proceedings in his dispute with the Savings Bank. The possibility of lodging such claims was envisaged in Articles 1064 and 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above). The Constitutional Court clarified that State liability for the damage caused by any violations of the litigant's right to a fair trial, including a breach of the reasonable-time guarantee, would arise even if the fault of the judge was established in civil - rather than criminal - proceedings and that the

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6