2006 the City Court upheld that judgment.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
20. 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 ..."
21. The proceedings commenced on 24 February 1998, when the applicant lodged her claim with the District Court. However, the Court only has competence ratione temporis to examine the period after 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. In the present case the proceedings were pending until 7 February 2006, when the City Court adopted a final decision in the case. Taking into account the above, the period to be considered is approximately seven years and nine months. During that period the case was examined three times at two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
22. The Court notes that this 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
23. The Government considered that the domestic courts examined the applicant's claim within a reasonable time. The case was particularly complex. The applicant amended her claims and the court needed additional time to study them and to call third parties and witnesses to the hearings. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by amending her claims and by lodging additional evidence, motions and appeals. On four occasions the case was adjourned because of her counsel's failure to attend, which resulted in a four-month delay. The courts examined the case several times. They conducted the proceedings promptly, without any delays. The case was adjourned on several occasions because the judge was on sick leave and other judges had a very heavy workload.
24. The applicant considered that the most significant delays in the proceedings were caused by the repeated reassignment of the case to different judges and the poor quality of the first-instance court decisions.
25. 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 relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, 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 [GC], No. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI). The Court further reiterates that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 17, Series A No. 230-D).
26. The Court agrees that the proceedings at issue were of a certain complexity, in particular, because the applicant amended her claims on several occasions. However, it cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of the proceedings.
27. As to the applicant's conduct, the Court is not convinced by the Government's argument that the applicant should be held responsible for amending her claims and lodging motions and appeals. It has been the Court's constant approach tha
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 ... 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
