tober 2008. The Court considers that the period from 20 March to 2 August 2001 should not be taken into account because no proceedings were pending before the national courts.
27. Thus, the proceedings took approximately eleven years and eight months, of which the period of ten years and nearly one month (at two level of jurisdiction) was within the Court's competence ratione temporis.
(b) Reasonableness of the period
28. 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).
29. The Court considers that the case was not particularly complex, despite the involvement of several parties and their claims. In the course of the proceedings a number of claims and counterclaims were withdrawn. It is noted in that connection that the court determined the dispute in 2008 essentially with reference to an expert report issued already in 1997.
30. The Court considers that first the applicant's husband and then the applicant, at least to a certain extent, contributed to the length of the proceedings as they or their lawyers failed to appear at several hearings, which resulted in adjournments. The applicant accepted that she was accountable for a cumulative delay of three months and for the period after 17 October 2001 when the proceedings were suspended at her request pending determination of her succession status and the issuing of the relevant certificate (see paragraph 23 above). Whatever the applicant's responsibility for that delay may be, there is insufficient factual basis for the Court to conclude that the period from October 2001 to March 2003 was attributable to the applicant or the State in the circumstances of the case (see paragraphs 12 - 14 above). The same considerations apply in relation to the suspension of the proceedings in 2007 following Mr Pr's death (see paragraph 17 above). The Government produced no evidence confirming their argument that the applicant was responsible for any delays other than those indicated above.
31. As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities, bearing in mind the above considerations, the Court observes that no full hearing was held between 2003 and early 2007. Although there were no significant periods of inactivity directly attributable to the court, the latter 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). The Court reiterates in that connection that the 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). Moreover, the Court notes that the court insisted on a number of occasions on Mr Pr's presence despite the fact that in 2002 he had asked the court to render a judgment in his absence (see paragraph 13 above). Lastly, the Government provided no explanation for replacing the trial judge in the course of the proceedings, which contributed to their overall duration.
32. The Court notes that the length of the proceedings was also due to the fact that the civil case was re-examined several times. 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
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
