Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Леханова (Lekhanova) против России» [англ.]

time of such registration.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

32. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings had exceeded a "reasonable time" in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads 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. Submissions by the parties

33. The Government submitted that the case was complex, involving issues of property rights, eviction claims and requests for annulment of a contract. The case concerned several parties and had been examined at three levels of jurisdiction on seven occasions. The applicant amended her claims on a number of occasions and lodged various requests, thus causing delays of around six months. She failed to attend a number of hearings, thus causing delays of eleven months and seventeen days. The applicant's appeals caused further delays. Other delays were attributable to the defendants. At the same time, the State could not be held liable for any significant delays; hearings were scheduled at regular intervals. In any event, adjournments were intended to enable the parties to be present at hearings.
34. The applicant contested the Government's submissions, noting that the latter adduced no evidence in support of their argument. The applicant argued that the case was not particularly complex and that she had amended her claims only twice - in 1998 and 2005 - because the relevant factual circumstances had evolved. Only one hearing was held in 2000; no full hearing was held between October 2002 and January 2004. While more than twenty adjournments were due to the defendants' or third persons' failure to appear before the court, the authorities had taken no measures to discipline the defaulting persons. Certain adjournments unnecessarily spanned over several months. As a result, the applicant or her representative had to appear before the court on fifty-nine occasions only to see most of the hearings adjourned.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

35. The Court notes that this complaint 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.

2. Merits

(a) Period under consideration
36. The Court notes that the domestic proceedings started in March 1998. However, the Court's competence ratione temporis is limited to the proceedings pending after 5 May 1998, the Convention having entered into force in respect of Russia on that date. In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, the Court may, however, take account of the state of proceedings at the time.
37. As to the date when the proceedings ended, the Court considers it unnecessary to decide, in the absence of the parties' submissions, whether the 2007 proceedings concerning the charging order (see paragraph 24 above and, mutatis mutandis, Robins v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1997, §§ 28 and 29, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V) or the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's favour (see paragraph 25 above and Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II) should be taken into account. Thus, it is accepted that the proceedings ended on 16 February 2006, when the appeal court issued its decision.
38. For the same reasons, the Court considers that the period from 11 October 2001 to 5 February 2002 should not be taken into account because no court or enforcement proceedings were pending.
39. Thus, the procee

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