Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Саликова (Salikova) против России» [англ.]

chnical examination and a forensic medical examination.
35. On 23 October 2007 at the applicant's request the District Court commissioned the medical examination to a different agency.
36. On 22 November 2007 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part ordering the town administration to build a drainage system in the vicinity of the applicant's house, and dismissed the other claims. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 6 February 2008.
37. On 27 May 2008 the bailiff service initiated the enforcement proceedings. Four months later they were terminated as the court judgment had been deemed executed.

E. Supervisory review and fifth examination of the case

38. On 21 October 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia, acting upon the applicant's request for supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 22 November 2007 and the decision of 6 February 2008 in the part concerning dismissal of the applicant's claim for compensation of pecuniary damage. The case was remitted in the relevant part to the first instance for fresh consideration.
39. On 18 December 2008 the District Court stayed the proceedings until the applicant's recovery from illness.
40. On 19 December 2008 head of the regional bailiff office quashed the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings after establishing that the court judgment had not been properly enforced. The enforcement proceedings were resumed.
41. On 11 January 2009 the District Court clarified its judgment of 22 November 2007 at the bailiff's request.
42. On 2 February 2009 the court proceedings were resumed.
43. On 12 March 2009 the District Court ordered a new technical examination at the applicant's request.
44. On 5, 7 and 14 May 2009 the District Court reminded the applicant to allow the experts access to the examined objects. However, the applicant failed to do so.
45. On 18 May 2009 the court dismissed the applicant's request for extension of the time-limit for appeal of the decision to order the new technical examination. It is not clear from the parties' submissions when this examination was completed.
46. On 13 November 2009 the District Court granted the applicant's claim for pecuniary compensation in part, awarding her 67,555 roubles to be paid by the town administration. In particular, the court repeatedly referred to expert conclusions from different years which established that the condition of the applicant's house was "unacceptable" and "dangerous for human habitation".
47. On 16 December 2009 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
48. The judgment of 22 November 2007 has not been enforced to date.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
on account of excessively long proceedings

49. The applicant complained that the proceedings in her case had been excessively long, breaching the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1. The relevant part of the provision reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."
50. The Court observes that the proceedings in the applicant's case commenced on 3 October 2000, when the applicant lodged her claim, and ended on 16 December 2009. During this time the domestic courts reviewed the case five times at two levels of jurisdiction. However, the period from 6 February to 21 October 2008 has to be excluded from the overall length, as the case was being examined on application for supervisory review and not pending. Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration amounted approximately to eight years and six months.

A. Adm

> 1 2 3 4 ... 6 7 8