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

caused by the applicant's failure to attend several hearings.
105. On the other hand, the applicant was one of those who initiated the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the supervisory proceedings which led to quashing of the final judgment in 2003. Moreover, the proceedings were reopened on 15 February 2006 upon the applicant's request (see paras. 16, 34, 60 above). Thus the periods of the consequent proceedings cannot be attributable on the State, unless they are unreasonably long.
106. As to the authorities' conduct, there were several short delays attributable to them (see paras. 9, 14, 18, 20 - 22, 29). The overall length of these delays was about six and a half months, which does not seem excessive.
107. There also was a suspension for about 13 months due to the proceedings in the Constitutional Court. However, they were conducted without any unnecessary delay (see paras. 60 and 61).
108. The hearings were scheduled at regular intervals. The courts of three levels of jurisdiction were involved in the applicant's case. The domestic courts examined the merits of the case several times and did not idle (see Antonov v. Russia (dec.), No. 38020/03, 3 November 2005; Kravchuk v. Russia (dec.), No. 72749/01, 1 February 2005; Pronina v. Russia (dec.), No. 65167/01, 30 June 2005).
109. As to what was at stake for the applicant, the Court observes that the applicant is a partially disabled person (see para. 5 above) and the proceedings concerned compensation for the caused health damage and food allowance. The proceedings were therefore important for the applicant.
110. Nonetheless, regard being had to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the "reasonable time" requirement has been complied with.
111. Hence there was no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.
(b) First set of proceedings concerning indexation of monthly payments
i. Periods to be taken into account
112. In this case the first period started in September 1999 when the applicant sued the authorities and ended on 11 October 2000 with the first final judgment.
113. The second period began on 30 March 2006 when the court reopened the case due to newly discovered circumstances and ended on 14 May 2007 with another final judgment (see paras. 45 - 48 above).
114. The total length is therefore approximately two years and two months.
ii. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings
115. The subject of the case was the same as in the proceedings considered above (see para. 103 above), not particularly difficult.
116. As to the applicant's conduct, the Court notes that it was the applicant who initiated the reopening of the proceedings in 2006.
117. As to the authorities' conduct, there were no considerable periods of inertia attributable to the State. The case was heard several times in two instances.
118. As to what was at stake for the applicant, like in the proceedings considered above (see para. 109), the case was important for him as it concerned the adjustment of monthly payments for compensation of his health damage (see paras. 42 and 47 above).
119. Under these circumstances the period of approximately two years and two months cannot raise an issue under the Convention. Hence there was no violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of length these proceedings, either.

IV. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

120. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective domestic remedy against the alleged violations, including, it appears, delayed enforcement of the judgment of 18 November 1997. Article 13 reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy befor

> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11