egard being had to the overall duration of the proceedings and the concomitant inflation processes in the period between the lodging of the applicant's initial claims in 1996 and their final examination in 2006.
57. The Court further considers that the applicant cannot be criticised for challenging the judge on one occasion. In this connection, the Court reiterates that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of her interests (see Kurbatov v. Russia, No. 44436/06, § 29, 2 October 2008; Angelova v. Russia, No. 33820/04, § 44, 13 December 2007; and Sokolov v. Russia, No. 3734/02, § 38, 22 September 2005).
58. In so far as the applicant did not object to the adjournments of the hearings resulting from the failure of the defendant to appear, the Court observes that it was not for the applicant, but for the domestic authorities to discipline the participants in the proceedings and to ensure that the case was heard within a reasonable time (see Kurbatov, cited above, § 30, and Sokolov, cited above, § 40).
59. Turning to the conduct of the domestic authorities, the Court notes that it led to some substantial delays in the proceedings. In particular, on several occasions rather substantial delays were caused by failures to apprise the applicant (or both parties) of the hearings. Thus, the failure to notify the applicant of the hearing of 18 March 1998 and to inform her of the relevant judgment before the expiration of the procedural time-limit for appealing resulted in inordinate delays in the appeal proceedings totalling almost one year. The failure to apprise the applicant of the hearings of 23 July and 20 August 2004 delayed the proceedings by nine months. The failure to apprise the parties of the appeal hearing of 18 July 2006 delayed the proceedings by another month.
60. The Court further notes that a delay amounting to approximately one year and eight months was caused by the adjournments of the hearings from 15 November 1999 to 5 May 2000, from 23 April to 30 September 2002, from 3 June to 21 October 2003, from 21 December 2003 to 15 March 2004 and from 7 December 2005 to 26 January 2006, which were due to the absence of the defendant and for which the domestic authorities should be held responsible (see paragraph 58 above).
61. Furthermore, it appears that after the quashing on 25 July 2001, by way of supervisory review, of the judgment of 5 May 2000, as upheld on 4 June 2000, no hearings in the case were scheduled until 23 April 2002, which resulted in another delay of almost nine months.
62. It follows that the total delay imputable to the domestic authorities amounted to at least four years and three months.
63. The Court is mindful of the Government's argument that on several occasions the case involved several instances. Nevertheless, this alone cannot justify the overall length of the proceedings (see Yerkimbayev v. Russia, No. 34104/04, § 41, 23 October 2008, and Angelova, cited above, § 46).
64. Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the juridical quality of the domestic courts' decisions, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is frequently ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings may disclose a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, No. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003; Matica v. Romania, No. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006; Falimonov v. Russia, No. 11549/02, § 58, 25 March 2008; and Oblov v. Russia, No. 22674/02, § 28, 15 January 2009).
65. Having regard to the foregoing, to the fact that the case was not complex and that the proceedings within the Court's competence ratione temporis lasted seven years and two months, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings did not satisfy the
> 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
