Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Татьяна Макарова (Tatyana Makarova) против России» [англ.]





er the concept of litigation meaningless.
34. The Court cannot accept the Government's further argument that the applicant and her representative did not enquire duly about the progress of the proceedings. The Court notes that the national law explicitly provides for an obligation on the part of the domestic courts to inform the parties, in a proper manner, of the dates of hearings (see § 24 above). In the present case, the District Court twice discontinued the proceedings on the ground of the applicant's repeated failure to appear in court, although this was, in fact, owing to its own failure to notify her of the scheduled hearings (see § 12 and § 17 above). In such circumstances, the time that elapsed while she waited in vain for the court summons and the time that elapsed before the discontinued proceedings were resumed cannot be imputable to the applicant.
35. With regard to the national authorities' conduct, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the respondent State to organise its legal system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, {Surmeli}, cited above, § 129). Referring to the above findings, the Court concludes that on several occasions the District Court failed to properly inform the applicant and her representative of the scheduled hearings and that the result was an aggregate delay of at least two years. The Court further notes that the examination of the case was substantially prolonged in consequence of the defendants' failure to attend a number of hearings. It is not critical to establish whether that was caused by their own fault or by the negligent notification by the District Court. The Court is of the opinion that, in any event, the delay is to be imputable to the respondent State, as the domestic authorities either failed to ensure that the participants were duly notified or to take the appropriate procedural measures that are available under the national law.
36. Having examined all the materials submitted and the existing case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

37. 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."

A. Damage

38. The applicant claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of a violation of her right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
39. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive and unreasonable and if the Court were to find a violation of the Convention, this would, in itself, be sufficient just satisfaction.
40. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone. The Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.

B. Costs and expenses

41. The applicant did not claim reimbursement of her costs and expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. Accordingly, the Court does not make any award under this head.

C. Default interest

42. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY





> 1 ... 2 3 4 5

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.1525 СЃ