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

rovision of housing and compensation for non-pecuniary damage 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

1. Period to be considered

37. The proceedings commenced on 6 March 1998, when the applicants lodged their claim against the company with the District Court. However, the Court only has competence ratione temporis to examine the period after 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of the proceedings at the time. In the present case the proceedings were pending until 15 December 2005, when the Regional Court delivered a final decision in the case. Taking into account the above, the period to be considered is approximately seven years and seven months. During that period the case was examined two times at two levels of jurisdiction.

2. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings

38. The Government submitted that the length of the proceedings in the present case had been reasonable. The case had been particularly complex. The domestic courts had examined the case in several rounds of proceedings. The applicants had delayed the proceedings by amending their claims, lodging motions and appeals. The proceedings had been adjourned several times because either the applicants or their representatives had not attended the hearings. The domestic authorities had taken all measures to examine the case within a reasonable time.
39. The applicants maintained their claims.
40. 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 Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], No. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI).
41. The Court agrees with the Government that the proceedings at issue were of a certain complexity. However, it cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of the proceedings.
42. As to the applicants' conduct, the Court does not accept the Government's argument that the applicants should be held responsible for amending their claims and lodging motions and appeals. It has been the Court's constant approach that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by the national law in the defence of his interests (see, mutatis mutandis, {Yagci and Sargin} v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, Series A No. 319-A, § 66). On the other hand, it was not disputed that at least five hearings did not take place because the applicants did not attend them (see paragraphs 8, 23 and 26 above) and five more hearings were adjourned because the applicants and the defendants did not appear (see paragraphs 12, 15 and 26 above). In this respect the Court reiterates that the applicants are required to show diligence in carrying out the procedural steps relating to them in the domestic proceedings, to refrain from using delaying tactics and to avail themselves of the scope afforded by domestic law for shortening the proceedings (see, for instance {Union} Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, § 35, Series A No. 157, and Humen v. Poland [GC], No. 26614/95, § 66, 15 October 1999). In the present case the applicants fai

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