Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Грибаненков (Gribanenkov) против России» [англ.]

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).
39. The Court observes that, compared to the length of proceedings in certain cases brought before the Court, the period of three years and ten months is not very long (see, for instance, Ivanova, cited above). On the other hand, the Court cannot accept long periods of total inactivity of the domestic courts (see Bunkate v. the Netherlands, 26 May 1993, § 23, Series A No. 248-B, and Mikhaylovich v. Russia, No. 30019/05, § 26, 12 February 2009).
40. The Court observes that the case in question was not complex and it appears that the length of the proceedings was largely due to the authorities' failure to pursue them with the requisite speed.
41. In particular, there were two substantial periods of inactivity of the courts. The first period lasted one year and six months, from 17 April 2001 to 17 October 2002, when the court of first instance repeatedly contested its jurisdiction instead of considering the case on the merits (see Gheorghe v. Romania, No. 19215/04, § 58, ECHR 2007-III). The second period of inactivity on the part of the authorities lasted nine months and 29 days, from 29 January 2003 to 28 November 2003, when the appellate court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination on the merits.
42. The Court further notes that the applicant does not appear to have contributed to the length of the proceedings and that the benefits at stake were the applicant's main, if not his sole, source of income.
43. In the light of these factors the Court finds that the length of the proceedings failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

44. The applicant further complained that he had no effective remedies for his complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
45. The Government did not comment on this issue.

A. Admissibility

46. The Court refers to its findings in paragraphs 34 - 35 above as to the admissibility of the complaint concerning length of proceedings and notes that this complaint is linked to it and must therefore likewise be declared admissible in respect of the first set of proceedings (paragraphs 7 - 14) and inadmissible in respect of the second set of proceedings (paragraphs 17 - 18).

B. Merits

47. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
48. The Court further observes that according to its case-law there is no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva v. Russia, No. 53084/99, §§ 61 - 62, 29 January 2004; Kuzin v. Russia, No. 22118/02, §§ 42 - 46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, No. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, No. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, No. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
49. In the present case the Government did not indicate any remedy that could ha

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6