Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Финков (Finkov) против России» [англ.]

deed, in situations where an alleged violation has already occurred, subsequent events can give rise to a loss of the status of "victim", provided that the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).
84. However, in the present case the domestic courts never referred to unlawfulness of the quashing of 13 November 2003 and the subsequent judgments were not intended to correct it. It follows that there was no acknowledgement that the quashing constituted a violation of the Convention.
85. As to the redress, the judgment of 10 December 2002 awarded the applicant RUB 4,850 in monthly payments, whereas the judgment of 24 March 2005 - only RUB 3,857.94 (see paras. 15 and 31 above).
86. Therefore there was neither acknowledgment nor redress of the alleged violation and the applicant could still claim to be a victim in respect of the quashing.
87. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

III. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
on account of length of proceedings

88. The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings concerning damages. He alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, as far as relevant, provides:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."
89. The Government contested that argument.
90. The Court notes that the applicant may be understood to complain about four sets of proceedings. One of them concerns compensation for health damage and food allowance (see paras. 7 - 36 above), two concern adjustment of monthly payments (paras. 42 - 52) and last one is about compensation for reduction of monthly payments (paras. 53 - 56). Though each of them concern the same social benefits, the proceedings were different and were tried by different courts. Therefore the length of each set of proceedings should be separately examined (Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania, No. 10508/02, § 59, 23 October 2007).

A. Admissibility

91. As to the proceedings for compensation for health damage and food allowance (paras. 7 - 36) and the first set of proceedings concerning indexation of monthly payments (paras. 42 - 49), the Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
92. As to the second set of proceedings concerning indexation of monthly payments (paras. 50 - 52) and the proceedings concerning the reduction of monthly payments (paras. 53 - 56), the relevant complaints were lodged on 1 August 2003. There is no indication in the submissions that the applicant had not been immediately aware of the final judgments. Therefore the complaints were lodged out of time, as more than six months elapsed since the final decisions of the domestic authorities and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.

B. Merits

1. General principles

93. The Court firstly considers that the periods during which the domestic courts decided whether or not to re-open the case should be excluded since Article 6 does not apply to such proceedings (see, for example, Markin v. Russia (dec.), No. 59502/00, 16 September 2004; Rudan v. Croatia (dec.), No. 45943/99, 13 September 2001; Petersen v. Denmark, No. 28288/95, Commission decision of 16 April 1998). Therefore the periods between final judgments and decisions to reopen the proceedi

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 ... 10 11