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

d cannot be imputable to the applicant.

3. The conduct of the national authorities

41. 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'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 defaulted in attending 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.
42. 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).
43. As has been established above, the District Court repeatedly failed to properly inform the applicant and her representatives of the scheduled hearings. For that reason, an aggregate delay of approximately two years and six months is to be attributed to the respondent State.
44. The Court further observes that the domestic court failed to take procedural measures in order to ensure that the defendants were present at the hearings, despite the fact that such measures were twice taken with respect to the other party of the dispute.

4. Conclusion

45. In the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the reasonable time requirement. It finds no reason to distinguish between the present case and that of Kesyan v. Russia (cited above).
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

46. 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

47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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

50. 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

51. 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. Declares the application admissible;

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6