Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Леханова (Lekhanova) против России» [англ.]

dings lasted seven years and nearly seven months, of which a period of seven years and nearly five months (at two levels of jurisdiction) was within the Court's competence ratione temporis.
(b) Reasonableness of the period
40. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the conduct of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], No. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
41. The Court considers that the case was relatively complex. While admitting that the task of the courts was rendered more difficult by this factor, the Court cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of those proceedings (see Mattila v. Finland, No. 77138/01, § 15, 23 May 2006).
42. As to the applicant's conduct, the Court reiterates that the person concerned is required only to show diligence in carrying out the procedural steps relating to her and to refrain from using delaying tactics (see {Union} Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, § 35, Series A No. 157). There is no reason to criticise the applicant for having used the remedies available under Russian law in the defence of her interests (see, among other authorities, Rokhlina v. Russia, No. 54071/00, § 88, 7 April 2005). It has not been alleged by the Government that the applicant went beyond the limits of legitimate defence by lodging frivolous petitions or unsubstantiated requests (see Komarova v. Russia, No. 19126/02, § 50, 2 November 2006). Having examined the parties' submissions and the available material, the Court considers, however, that some delays in 1998, late 1999 and 2004 are at least in part attributable to the applicant and that no other significant delay is attributable to her.
43. As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court reiterates that respondent States have a duty to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (see {Surmeli} v. Germany [GC], No. 75529/01, § 129, 8 June 2006). The Court notes in that connection that the length of the proceedings was due, inter alia, to the fact that the civil case was re-examined several times, including once following a reopening by way of supervisory review. The Court does not lose sight of the fact that the procedure for reopening proceedings in 2002 was set in motion by the President of the Regional Court. Besides, while the Convention allows the resumption of national proceedings in the circumstances of a substantial and compelling character outweighing the principle of legal certainty (see Protsenko v. Russia, No. 13151/04, §§ 30 - 34, 31 July 2008, and Lenskaya v. Russia, No. 28730/03, §§ 40 and 41, 29 January 2009), once such a reopening is allowed, the ensuing proceedings should be completed within a "reasonable time", regard being had to all pertinent factors (see, mutatis mutandis, Oblov v. Russia, No. 22674/02, § 27, 15 January 2009). However, in the present case, no full hearing was held after the resumption of the trial proceedings in 2000 and 2002. Nor was such a hearing held in 2003.
44. Moreover, numerous adjournments throughout the proceedings resulted on each occasion in delays exceeding two or three months at times. The Government provided no reasons to justify such repetitive periods of inactivity.
45. The Court further observes that although there were no other significant periods of inactivity directly attributable to the domestic courts, they did not take any measures to discipline the defaulting parties, thus allowing the proceedings to drag on for years (see Salmanov v. Russia, No. 3522/04, § 87, 31 July 2008, with further references).



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7

	Поделиться:	Tweet