Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 "Дело "МП "Кинескоп" (MP Kineskop) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

2. The conduct of the applicant company
and its representatives

36. The Government asserted that, though the participants' efforts to ensure the best representation of their interests were understandable, the manner in which the applicant company and its representatives had exercised their procedural rights had contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. They referred, in particular, to the requests by the applicant company's representative to conduct the two expert examinations and to take evidence from witnesses residing in another region.
37. They also imputed to the applicant company's representatives a repeated failure to appear in court and lack of diligence in keeping up with developments in the proceedings. The former factor had twice resulted in the proceedings being discontinued and the latter had been a cause for their belated resumption (see §§ 10 - 12 and 15 - 17). Together, these factors had caused a delay of approximately two years and six months.
38. As regards the applicant company's procedural applications, the Court notes that they were not abusive, frivolous or vexatious but were legitimate and aimed at obtaining additional evidence. It has been the Court's consistent approach that an applicant cannot be criticised for taking full advantage of resources afforded by national law in the defence of his or her interests, even if it results in a certain increase in the length of the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, {Yagci} and {Sargin} v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A No. 319-A and {Surmeli} v. Germany [GC], No. 75529/01, § 131, ECHR 2006-VII). The opposite approach would render the concept of litigation meaningless.
39. The Court cannot accept the Government's further argument that the applicant company's representatives continually failed to attend the hearings and then failed to enquire about the progress of the proceedings. It is noted 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 scheduled hearings (see § 23 above). In the present case, the District Court twice discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant company's representatives had failed to appear in court, although that was, in fact, owing to its own failure to notify them of the hearings (see §§ 12 and 17 above). In such circumstances, the time that elapsed while the applicant company and its representatives waited in vain for the court summons and before the discontinued proceedings were resumed cannot be imputable to the applicant company.

3. The conduct of the national authorities

40. The Government alleged that the domestic courts had, in general, complied with the reasonable time requirement as they had made it possible for the expert examinations to be carried out promptly, had cooperated in collecting evidence from the witnesses and had even twice taken measures to discipline the applicant company's representatives, that is by discontinuing the civil proceedings. At the same time, the Government acknowledged that on several occasions one of the defendants, a State authority, had failed to attend the court hearings. They stated, however, that having regard to the overall length of the proceedings the delay of approximately five months thereby incurred was negligible.
41. The Court is not convinced by the Government's arguments. It observes that it is incumbent on the Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, including the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (see {Surmeli} v. Germany [GC], No. 75529/01, § 129, 8 June 2006).
42. As has been established above, the District Court repeatedly failed to properly inform the applicant

> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11