on
on account of excessively long proceedings
30. The applicant complained that the courts had taken too long to examine his case and thus breached the "reasonable time" requirement as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The relevant part of the provision 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..."
A. Admissibility
31. The Government argued that Article 6 did not apply to the present case referring to the Court's previous findings in Pellegrin v. France ([GC], No. 28541/95, §§ 65 - 67, ECHR 1999-VIII). In particular, they noted that the applicant had been a public servant and his case had concerned a dispute between the administrative authorities and an employee who had occupied a post involving participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law.
32. The applicant contested that argument.
33. The Court notes firstly that until 30 January 2003, when the applicant de facto returned to his job, he was not an active military officer and his dispute concerned reinstatement in the job and various damages.
34. The Court further observes that indeed until a certain point in its practice employment disputes between the State and its military personnel were not, as a rule, regarded as "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and thus fell outside of the Court's competence ratione materiae (see Pellegrin v. France, cited above; see also Kanayev v. Russia, No. 43726/02, § 16, 27 July 2006).
35. However, in its later judgment Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], No. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-IV) the Grand Chamber developed the existing case-law applying new criteria of applicability of Article 6 to such disputes. In particular, it decided that Article 6 under its "civil" head should be applicable to all disputes involving civil servants, unless the national law expressly excludes access to a court for the post of category of staff in question, and this exclusion is justified on objective grounds in the State's interest.
36. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant's claims were accepted, examined, and partially granted by the domestic courts following ordinary rules of civil procedure. It is true that his case was examined by military courts, i.e. the courts composed of military personnel and attached not to a particular administrative territorial unit but to a garrison. However, nothing suggests that the military courts are not "tribunals" within the meaning of Article 6. Therefore, the applicant was not excluded by the domestic law from the "access to a court" within the meaning of Article 6 (see Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, Nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, § 47, 21 June 2007).
37. Having regard to the above, the Court considers Article 6 to be applicable to the present case. It further notes that the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
38. The Government objected to the applicant's complaint. In particular, they stated that his case had been rather legally complex and involved examination of numerous documents and witnesses. Furthermore, the applicant had contributed greatly to the length by lodging ill-founded motions and challenges. In addition, they suggested that the length of the court's examination of the applicant's case be calculated from 2 October 1998, when the applicant had lodged his first claim to the courts, to 1 November 2004, when the applicant had received the last payment under the court's judgments.
39. The applicant maintained his complaint. He further argued that the length of the court's examination of
> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
