reau of the region of Kh.'s possible residence and obtained a police report. The parties were apprised of their right to file a request with the police for Kh.'s search.
31. On 23 December 2002 the Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal.
32. On 5 June 2008 the District Court quashed its decision of 23 October 2002 at the parties' request and resumed the proceedings.
33. On 16 June 2008 the District Court rejected the applicant's claims for invalidation of the four-way exchange transactions. It transpires from the text of the judgment that Kh., whose whereabouts were still unknown, was represented by legal counsel appointed by the court in accordance with Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant appealed the judgment but did not inform the Court about the outcome of her appeal.
B. Action for damages allegedly arising out of the State's
failure to pay the guardian's allowance to the applicant
34. On 20 September 2002 the Justice of Peace of Court Circuit No. 1 of the Kochubeyevskiy District of the Stavropol Region dismissed the applicant's claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages allegedly resulting from delayed payment of the guardian's allowance to her.
35. On 25 December 2002 the Kochubeyevskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region upheld the judgment of 20 September 2002 on appeal.
II. Relevant domestic law
A. Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR of 1964
in force until 1 February 2003
36. Section 112 provided that in case of unknown whereabouts of a respondent party the court should begin examination of the case upon receipt of the summons with a note testifying that it had been viewed by the housing authority or local council of people's deputies at the respondent's place of residence. It further provided that the court should put a missing respondent on the wanted list if the dispute concerned alimony, health damages and damages resulting from the loss of the main provider, and was entitled to do so in disputes brought by State or public agencies.
37. Section 215.4 provided that the court was entitled to stay the proceedings if the respondent had been put on the wanted list in accordance with Section 112.
38. Section 216.2 provided that the proceedings that were stayed in accordance with Section 215 should be resumed upon establishing the respondent's whereabouts.
B. Code of Civil Procedure of Russia in force
as of 1 February 2003
39. Section 50 provides that the court should appoint legal counsel to represent a respondent with an unknown place of residence and in other cases envisaged by the federal law.
40. Section 219 provides that court proceedings should be resumed upon clearance of the factors impeding continuation of the proceedings, by way of the parties' request or court's own initiative.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
41. The applicant complained that the proceedings in her case had been excessively long, breaching Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of 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..."
42. The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, it will take account of the state of proceedings at the time.
43. The Court is satisfied that between 5 May 1998 and 16 June 2008 the domestic courts considered the applicant's case twice a
> 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
