the respondent's representative's request. The respondent was notified that in the event of a default in appearance on 30 November 1999 the case would be examined in its absence.
13. On 30 November 1999 the court invited the applicant to provide some additional evidence and adjourned the hearing to 7 February 2000.
14. On 7 February 2000 at the applicant's request the hearing was adjourned to 21 April 2000. On the latter date the hearing did not take place as the judge was away for training.
15. The hearing of 7 June 2000 did not take place due to the judge's illness.
16. On 28 October 2000 the case was transmitted back to judge V.
17. On 27 December 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 14 February 2001 at the respondent's representative's request.
18. On 22 February 2001 the applicant submitted the amended claims and calculations.
19. On 27 June 2001 the hearing was adjourned as the respondent's representative requested the court to obtain certain evidence.
20. From 31 July to 10 December 2001 no hearings were scheduled due to the judge's illness and subsequent vacation.
21. On 25 January 2002 the hearing did not take place as the applicant's representative failed to appear.
22. The hearing of 4 March 2002 was adjourned on account of a need to obtain certain evidence.
23. On 10 April 2002 the case was transferred to judge P., again for unspecified reasons. A hearing was scheduled for 29 August 2002.
24. Between 29 August and 15 October 2002 three hearings did not take place due to the applicant's failure to appear.
25. On 13 November 2002 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part awarding her a lump sum of 7,311 Russian roubles (RUB), RUB 3,600 in penalties and RUB 3,600 in legal expenses.
26. On 3 April 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment.
27. On 17 November 2003 the proceedings were deemed enforced in the part concerning the amount of RUB 7,311.
28. On 13 December 2005 the District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings against the company in the part concerning the remainder of the award due to the fact that the company had been liquidated in October 2005 and had no assets to cover the applicant's claims.
29. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against this decision.
II. Relevant domestic law
30. Federal Law N 68-ФЗ of 30 April 2010 (in force as of 4 May 2010) provides that in case of a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or of the right to enforcement of a final judgment, the Russian citizens are entitled to seek compensation of the non-pecuniary damage. Federal Law N 69-ФЗ adopted on the same day introduced the pertinent changes in the Russian legislation.
31. Section 6.2 of the Federal Law N 68-ФЗ provides that everyone who has a pending application before the European Court of Human Rights concerning a complaint of the nature described in the law has six months to bring the complaint to the domestic courts.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
32. The applicant complained that the excessive length of the proceedings in her case breached the "reasonable time" requirement as provided 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..."
33. The Court observes that the proceedings commenced on 10 March 1997 and ended on 3 April 2003. However, the part of the proceedings that occurred before 5 May 1998, the date of entry of the Convention into force in respect of Russia, has to be excluded from the overall length. Thus, the aggrega
> 1 2 3 4 ... 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
