been notified of the hearings of 23 July and 20 August 2004. The next hearing was set for 27 May 2005.
35. On 27 May 2005 the hearing was adjourned until 8 July 2005 because the judge was sitting in unrelated proceedings.
36. On 8 July 2005 the applicant challenged the judge, without success. The hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date.
37. On 5 August 2005 the case was assigned to a different judge and a hearing was fixed for 25 October 2005.
38. On 6 December 2005 the applicant amended her claims in so far as they concerned the amount to be paid to her in interest and in respect of non-pecuniary damage by the defendant.
39. In the period between 7 December 2005 and 26 January 2006 hearings were adjourned on two occasions because the defendant had failed to appear.
40. On 26 January 2006 the applicant waived some of her claims. The hearing was adjourned until 6 February 2006.
41. On 6 February 2006 the Krasnogorsk Town Court partly granted the applicant's claims. The applicant appealed.
42. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 18 July 2006.
43. On 18 July 2006 the appeal hearing was adjourned until 14 August 2006 since both parties had failed to appear and the case file contained no proof that they had been properly notified of it.
44. On 14 August 2006 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
on account of the length of the proceedings
45. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement, laid down 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..."
A. Admissibility
46. The Court observes that the applicant introduced her claim on 4 December 1996; however, it only has competence ratione temporis to examine the period after 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia.
47. The Court further observes that only those periods when the case was actually pending before the courts should be taken into account, that is, the periods when there was no judgment in the determination of the merits of the applicant's dispute and when the authorities were under an obligation to give such a judgment. The periods during which the domestic courts were deciding whether or not to reopen the case should, however, be excluded since Article 6 does not apply to such proceedings (see Ignatyeva v. Russia, No. 10277/05, § 34, 3 April 2008, and Skorobogatova v. Russia, No. 33914/02, § 39, 1 December 2005, with further references).
48. It follows that after 5 May 1998 the proceedings remained pending during two periods. The first period commenced on 5 May 1998 and ended on 4 June 2000 when the judgment of 5 May 2000 was upheld on appeal. The second period commenced on 25 July 2001 with the supervisory-review decision and ended on 14 August 2006 when the judgment of 6 February 2006 was upheld on appeal. Therefore, in the post-ratification period the proceedings lasted for approximately seven years and two months. During this period the case was determined by ordinary courts at two levels of jurisdiction.
49. The Court notes that the 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
1. Submissions by the parties
50. The Government submitted that the case was rather complex in nature. It had been further complicated by its initial merger
> 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
