Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.10.2009 "Дело "Трошкин (Troshkin) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

ials in the criminal investigation file, such as the crime-scene investigation and forensic expert reports.

THE LAW

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

22. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which 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..."
23. The Government contested that argument. They considered the length of the civil proceedings in the instant case to be reasonable given that the significant delays in the proceedings were due to the applicant, who had repeatedly modified his claims and asked for adjournments. The judicial authorities had dealt with the case with due care. The hearings had been scheduled on a regular basis and the parties' requests had been examined at the same hearing. The matter was complex and the court of first instance had had to stay the proceedings pending the ongoing criminal investigation into the road traffic accident, the findings of which were decisive for the proper resolution of the civil dispute.
24. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that the case was not complex, that significant delays had occurred as a result of the mala fide conduct of the respondent company, whose representative had deliberately protracted the proceedings, and that the domestic judicial authorities had done nothing to rectify the situation.

A. Admissibility

25. 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.

B. Merits

1. The period under consideration

26. The Court observes that the applicant initiated the civil proceedings on 25 June 1997. However, the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the present case began only on 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must, nevertheless, be taken of the state of the proceedings at the time. The period in question ended on 9 December 2004 with the final decision of the Regional Court. It lasted, accordingly, a total of seven years and five and a half months, of which six years and seven months fall within the Court's jurisdiction. During that period the case was examined twice at two levels of jurisdiction.

2. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings

27. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference 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). Only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among numerous authorities, Proszak v. Poland, 16 December 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII).
28. The Court observes that the proceedings in question concerned issues of civil liability arising from a road traffic accident which was of a certain complexity. However, the complexity of the case cannot, in itself, justify the overall duration of the proceedings, namely six years and seven months.
29. As regards the applicant's conduct, the Court observes that he asked on several occasions for adjou

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9