sought supervisory review. On 12 April 1999 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for re-examination.
11. In the resumed proceedings, the applicant amended his claim and sought to substitute the respondent by the new company. On 2 July 1999 the District Court required the company to provide the applicant with housing. On 1 December 1999 the Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
12. On 24 April 2000 the District Court issued a new judgment in the applicant's favour. On 30 June 2000 the Regional Court set aside this judgment on appeal and ordered a new examination of the case. The district judge was on annual leave from 26 July to 5 September 2000. One hearing was adjourned due to the applicant; two hearings were adjourned at the respondent's request. On 20 February 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. On 23 May 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant sought supervisory review. On 19 August 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above judgments and remitted the case for fresh examination.
13. Between October 2002 and January 2004 a number of hearings were scheduled and adjourned mostly because the respondent failed to attend or sought adjournments. Several hearings were adjourned because of the applicant. One hearing was adjourned in view of the judge's illness. By a judgment of 12 February 2004, the District Court rejected the applicant's claim. On 21 April 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
14. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in his civil case had exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement under Article 6 of the Convention, which reads in the relevant part 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
15. 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
16. The Government submitted that the proceedings were complex. The applicant had varied his claim a number of times and the respondent had lodged counterclaims. Certain hearings were adjourned because the applicant or his representative failed to attend. Significant delays were caused by the respondents, private companies, for whose actions or omissions the State could not be held liable. The pace of the proceedings after 5 May 1998 was acceptable.
17. The applicant maintained his complaint.
18. The Court observes that the proceedings started in 1993 and ended on 21 April 2004. The Court has jurisdiction to examine the complaint in so far as it concerns the proceedings after 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia, with due regard to the state of proceedings on that date. Furthermore, the Court considers that the periods from 12 March to 12 April 1999, and from 23 May 2001 to 19 August 2002 should not be taken into consideration. Thus, the period to be taken into account amounts to approximately four years and eight months within the Court's competence ratione temporis at two levels of jurisdiction.
19. 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 that of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the appl
> 1 2 3 4
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
