Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.2010 «Дело Куприны (Kupriny) против России» [англ.]

by the parties to the proceedings. The hearings of 12 September 2005 did not take place because the parties did not appear.
27. On 28 September 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicants' claims for provision of housing and compensation for non-pecuniary damage as lodged against an improper defendant and held that it was open to the applicants to bring their claims against a proper defendant.
28. On 15 December 2005 the Regional Court upheld that judgment.

C. The applicants' complaints about the length
of the proceedings

29. The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings to different domestic authorities.
30. On 6 September 2001 the Judiciary Qualification Board of the Tula Region replied to the applicants that the examination of the case had been delayed because they or their representative had failed to appear at the hearings, because the judge had been on sick leave and also because the court had summonsed additional witnesses.
31. On 3 December 2004 the President of the District Court replied to the applicants that the case had been adjourned several times due to their failure to appear or because they needed additional time to prepare for the hearings.
32. On 19 January 2005 the Judiciary Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation replied to the applicants that their case had been scheduled for examination several times. However, the hearings had been adjourned either because the applicants needed more time to prepare for the hearings or because they had not attended them.
33. On 5 June 2005 the applicants requested the Regional Court to take disciplinary measures in respect of Judge Ka. for the lengthy examination of their case. On 9 August 2005 the Regional Court replied that the verification which had been carried out on the applicants' complaints established that the District Court had failed to comply with the procedural time-limits in examination of their case. However, the Regional Court noted that Judge Ka. had taken measures to examine the applicants' case on the merits. In particular, she had scheduled hearings, summonsed the parties to the hearings and had collected additional evidence for the case. Having regard to the above, the Regional Court considered that there had been no grounds to take disciplinary measures in respect of Judge Ka.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention

34. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."

A. Admissibility

35. The Court observes that on 29 October 1997 the company brought a court action for eviction of the applicants from the flat provided to them in 1994 and on 6 March 1998 the applicants lodged a counterclaim against the company for provision of another flat and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. By a final decision of 19 September 2002 the domestic courts discontinued the proceedings relating to the eviction of the applicants. The applicant lodged their application to the Court on 5 June 2006. Therefore, in so far as the applicants may be understood to complain about the length of the proceedings concerning their eviction, they lodged this complaint more than six months after the final decision in those proceedings was taken. Therefore, this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
36. The Court further notes that the applicants' complaint about the length of the proceedings instituted by them against the company for p

> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6 7