shev v. Russia, No. 69889/01, § 22, 20 October 2005). It concludes, therefore, that the first-instance proceedings ended on 4 September 2003, when the applicant was informed that the text of the judgment of 26 February 2003 had been finalised on 3 September 2003. The overall length of examination of the applicant's civil case in the first instance amounted to five years and one month.
63. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings coming within the scope of Article 6 § 1 must be assessed in each case according to the particular circumstances. The Court has to have regard, inter alia, to the complexity of the factual or legal issues raised by the case, to the conduct of the applicant and the competent authorities and to what was at stake for the former (see Frydlender v. France [GC], No. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). In addition, only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark, No. 49017/99, § 44, 19 June 2003).
64. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the applicant's civil dispute was not particularly complex. It is not convinced by the Government's argument that the fact that the defendants were State agencies could in any manner add to the complexity of the proceedings for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Further, the Court notes that the applicant did amend his statement of claims on one occasion (see paragraph 24 above). However, it is not persuaded that this factor in itself rendered the task of the district court more difficult. In any event, assuming that the applicant's civil proceedings were not straightforwardly simple, the Court cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of the proceedings (see Malinin v. Russia (dec.), No. 58391/00, 8 July 2004, and Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), No. 31266/02, 5 October 2006).
65. As to the applicant's conduct, the Court notes that on three occasions delays were caused by the applicant's failure to appear (see paragraphs 16, 22 and 27 above). It observes at the same time that the hearing of 10 September 2002 would most likely have been postponed even if the applicant had attended it, owing to the defendants' absence. It follows that the total delay incurred as a result of the applicant's failure to appear in the court room amounted to less than four months.
66. As regards the delays caused by the applicant's requests to summon witnesses, as well as his requests for information on the criminal case in which he was victim (see paragraphs 13, 14, 21 and 20), the Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interests (see, among other authorities, Patta v. the Czech Republic, No. 12605/02, § 69, 18 April 2006, and Stojanov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", No. 34215/02, § 56, 31 May 2007). Accordingly, it finds no reason to conclude that the applicant's behaviour was dilatory.
67. The Court further observes that substantial periods of inactivity for which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation are attributable to the domestic authorities. For example, the Government failed to provide any justification for the delay from July 1998, when the applicant lodged his claim, to 1 December 1998 when the district court held its first hearing in the case (see paragraph 9 above). Further delays in the proceedings were due to infrequent hearings scheduled with significant intervals of sometimes several months (see Falimonov, cited above, § 57). The Government did not explain why no hearings had been scheduled between 1 December 1998 and 18 May 1999, 26 April and 12 July 2001, 12 July and 20 November 2001, 20
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
