Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Георгий Николаевич Михайлов (Georgiy Nikolayevich Mikhaylov) против России» [англ.]

November 2001 and 12 March 2002, 12 March and 10 September 2002 and 10 September 2002 and 13 February 2003.
68. The Court also considers that the domestic authorities were responsible for a substantial delay in the proceedings caused by the defendants' failure to attend hearings (see paragraphs 12, 23, 25, 26 and 28 above). The Government have not provided any information suggesting that the domestic authorities took adequate steps in order to ensure the defendants' presence, or reacted in any way to the defendants' behaviour, or used the measures available to them to discipline the participants to the proceedings and ensure that the case be heard within a reasonable time (see Kesyan v. Russia, No. 36496/02, § 58, 19 October 2006).
69. Moreover, the Court cannot but be struck with the fact that it took the district court more than six months to prepare the text of the first-instance judgment. It takes note of the Government's submission that this delay was in breach of domestic rules and considers that it is clearly attributable to the State.
70. Lastly, the Court reiterates that the dispute in the present case concerns compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by confiscation of the applicant's property in the course of criminal proceedings that were discontinued for lack of a crime. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the issue at stake for the applicant was of no particular importance.
71. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the applicant's civil case was not heard within a "reasonable time". There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of civil proceedings.

II. Alleged violation of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

72. The applicant complained that refusal to admit his appeal against the judgment in his civil case had deprived him of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"Every... person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions..."
73. The Government contested that argument.
74. The applicant maintained his complaint and submitted that he had lost property of considerable value because of the State agencies' actions.
75. The Court has already examined the applicant's complaint concerning the lack of access to the appeal court under Article 6 of the Convention. In view of its conclusion that there has been a violation of that provision, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

76. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
77. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of lack of access to court;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of civil proceedings;
4. Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9