Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Маркова (Markova) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF MARKOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 13119/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 8.I.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Markova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 13119/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Ms Nadezhda Nikolayevna Markova ("the applicant"), on 8 April 2003.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their former Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
3. On 14 March 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Moscow.

A. Compensation proceedings

5. In February 1996 the applicant's neighbour caused a flood in the applicant's flat. According to the applicant, she sent a statement of claims to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow by regular mail in November 1996. She sought compensation for damage caused by her neighbour. It is unclear whether the applicant's statement was received by the District Court.
6. On 14 January 1997 the applicant resubmitted her tort action against her neighbour to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. On 10 October 1997 the proceedings were stayed pending an expert examination. They were subsequently resumed on 10 March 1998 with no examination having been performed.
7. From 28 April 1998 to 17 February 1999 several hearings were adjourned either because the defendant had not attended or because the judge was busy on another case.
8. On 17 February 1999 another expert examination was ordered. The parties refused to pay for it. The examination was not performed and on 13 May 1999 the experts returned the case file to the District Court. On 8 June 1999 and 10 April 2000 the court made an offer to the applicant to pay for the expert report. According to the Government, she did not reply to the offer.
9. On 3 August 2000 the Basmanniy District Court resumed the proceedings.
10. On 15 August 2000 the hearing was adjourned because the parties had not attended. On 24 August 2000 the Basmanniy District Court refused to examine the action because the parties had again failed to appear.
11. On 4 September 2000 the applicant complained to the Moscow City Court that she had not been properly notified of the hearing of 24 August 2000 and had b

> 1 2 3 ... 4