ch a way that their courts can meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see Muti v. Italy, 23 March 1994, § 15, Series A No. 281-C). Accordingly, the Court does not find the judge's absences to be objective factors justifying significant delays in the proceedings.
42. The Court further recalls that six hearings in the course of the proceedings were adjourned at the request of the respondent or following the respondent's representative's failure to appear. With regard to the respondent's behaviour, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that "parties' attitude does not dispense the courts from ensuring the expeditious trial required by Article 6 § 1" (see, among many other authorities, {Union} Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, § 35, Series A No. 157). In the applicant's case the domestic courts had an opportunity to discipline the defaulting respondent but failed to do so despite their threat to that effect (see Salmanov v. Russia, No. 3522/04, § 87, 31 July 2008).
43. Lastly, the Court takes cognisance of the significant intervals between the scheduled hearings and notes in particular that during almost five years the domestic courts only held nine hearings in total.
44. Regard being had to all the circumstances of the case, in particular, the relative simplicity of the case and the significant delays attributed to the judicial authorities, the Court concludes that there has been a breach of the "reasonable time" requirement.
II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
45. The applicant further complained that she had not had an effective remedy against the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings in her case. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
A. Admissibility
46. The Government submitted that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded and requested to reject it in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
47. 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
48. The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy introduced by the federal laws N 68-ФЗ and N 69-ФЗ in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (No. 2) (No. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...). These statutes, which entered into force on 4 May 2010, set up a new remedy which enables those concerned to seek compensation for the damage sustained as a result of unreasonable length of the proceedings (see para. 30 above).
49. The Court observes that in the present case the parties' observations in respect of Article 13 arrived before 4 May 2010 and did not contain any references to the new legislative development. However, it accepts that as of 4 May 2010 the applicant has had a right to use the new remedy (see para. 31 above).
50. The Court recalls that in the pilot judgment cited above it stated that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (Burdov (No. 2), cited above, § 144). In line with this principle, the Court decided to examine the present application on its merits and found a violation of the substantive provision of the Convention.
51. However, the fact of examination of the present case on its merits sho
> 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
