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

issibility

51. 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

52. The applicant submitted that her case had not been complex and had not warranted such a long examination by the domestic courts.
53. The Government disagreed. They stated that the applicant's case had been technically complex requiring a number of expert examinations which overall lasted for a reasonable time. They further submitted that the majority of the unnecessary delays had been caused by the applicant's lodging multiple motions, altering her claims and requesting adjournments. She also did not object to the other party's motions delaying the proceedings. Finally, the hearings were scheduled regularly and motions were examined promptly.
54. 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). In addition, only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, 13 July 1983, p. 11, § 24, Series A No. 66; see also {Pilissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
55. The Court finds that the proceedings at issue were of some complexity as they required the taking of an expert opinion and involved several respondents. The applicant amended and supplemented her claims on at least three occasions. The Court considers that the task of the courts was rendered more difficult by these factors, although it cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of the proceedings (see, among others, Antonov v. Russia (dec.), No. 38020/03, 3 November 2005).
56. Insofar as the applicant's behaviour is concerned, the Court accepts that indeed she delayed the proceedings to some extent by requesting adjournments and, in one particular instance, failing to comply with the court's requests to provide access to the experts (see para. 44 above). As to the applicant's amending and supplementing her claims, it has been the Court's constant approach that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of he resources afforded by the national law in defence of his interests (see, mutatis mutandis, {Yagci} and {Sargin} v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A No. 319-A). Accordingly, the Court finds that the overall delay imputable to the applicant did not exceed eleven months.
57. Turning to the conduct of the authorities, the Court recalls that the domestic courts examined the case in five rounds of proceedings. It accepts the Government's argument that the courts did not display any procrastination in scheduling the hearings and resolving the parties' motions. However, the Court observes three major deficiencies that occurred in the course of the proceedings.
58. Firstly, it notes that the authorities had failed to establish the court competent to deal with the applicant's claims for eighteen months. The Court reiterates that the authorities are responsible for the delays stemming from the courts' mistakes concerning jurisdiction (see Gheorghe v. Romania, No. 19215/04, § 58, ECHR 2007-III (extracts)). It was incumbent upon the domestic authorities to ensure that the national law provided clear guidance on the application of the courts&#

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7 8