Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Сокорев (Sokorev) против России» [англ.]

icant in the dispute (see, among other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], No. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
20. The Court considers that the case was not particularly complex. Nor did the applicant's decisions to amend his claim affect that matter.
21. As to the conduct of the applicant, no significant delays can be attributed to him. The Court does not lose sight of the fact that the procedure for reopening proceedings in 2001 was set in motion by the applicant. However, there is no indication that the applicant went beyond merely taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law (see {Yagci} and {Sargin} v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A No. 319-A).
22. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that the length of the proceedings was due to the fact that the case was re-examined several times, including following reopening by way of a supervisory review. Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the juridical quality of the domestic courts' decisions, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is frequently ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings may disclose a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, No. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003; Matica v. Romania, No. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006; Falimonov v. Russia, No. 11549/02, § 58, 25 March 2008; and Maruseva v. Russia, No. 28602/02, § 32, 29 May 2008). It is incumbent on respondent 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).
23. Furthermore, the Court notes that the conduct of the respondent was one of the reasons for the prolongation of the proceedings. In the Court's opinion, it was incumbent on the court dealing with the case to discipline the defaulting party in order to ensure that the proceedings were conducted at an acceptable pace (see {Kusmierek} v. Poland, No. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004, and Sidorenko v. Russia, No. 4459/03, § 34, 8 March 2007).
24. Lastly, the Court notes that the civil dispute concerned the applicant's and his family's housing rights. Thus, it is accepted that the case concerned a matter requiring special diligence on the part of the national authorities.
25. Making an overall assessment and having regard to its case-law on the matter, the Court concludes that the "reasonable time" requirement was not met in the present case. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

26. The applicant complained about the supervisory review ruling of 12 April 1999 and the findings made by the national courts at various stages of the proceedings.
27. The Court has examined those complaints, as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

28. 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."
29.

> 1 2 3 4