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

n the sale of the plot of land.

C. Further proceedings

21. In 1999 the Governor of St Petersburg annulled the decision to resettle the inhabitants of the houses affected by the construction plan. It was by then considered unlikely that the City would need to acquire these properties in order to implement its new town plan. The applicant sued the Governor and claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. By a final decision of 3 July 2001 the City Court dismissed his claims.
22. The applicant also sued the City and District administrations for their failure to provide him with a flat. By a final decision of 18 October 2001 the City Court dismissed his claims.

THE LAW

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

23. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings which ended on 7 December 2006 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..."
24. The proceedings commenced in 1997, when the applicant lodged his claim with the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg. However, the Court will only consider the period of the proceedings which took place after 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 be taken of the state of the proceedings at the time. The period in question ended on 7 December 2006. Thus, the Court has competence ratione temporis to examine a period of approximately eight years and seven months. During that period the case was examined at two levels of jurisdiction.

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

26. The Government firstly argued that the length of proceedings in the present case was due to the particular complexity of the case. They further submitted that the applicant had also contributed to the length of the proceedings by amending his claims on several occasions, and by lodging different motions; he had requested an expert study and appealed against the first-instance court decisions. Moreover, the parties had failed to appear at several hearings. The domestic courts had conducted the proceedings properly. They had examined the case twice at two levels of jurisdiction. Some insignificant delays had occurred when the judge was on sick leave or was involved in unrelated proceedings.
27. In the applicant's view, the most significant delays in the proceedings were caused by repeated reassignment of the case to different judges and the poor quality of the first-instance court decisions.
28. 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). In addition, only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], No. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI).
29. The Court agrees with the Government that the proceedings at issue were of a certain complexity as they required examination of a complex factual backgroun

> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6