12. On 15 December 2004 the Sestroretskiy District Court adjourned the appeal proceedings because the applicant had not submitted the "reasoned" appeal statement and a certificate showing that he had paid the court fee.
13. The applicant complained about the decision of 15 December 2004 before the St. Petersburg City Court.
14. On 22 April 2005 the St. Petersburg City Court refused to examine the applicant's appeal, noting that he had failed to comply with the District Court's decision of 15 December 2004.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
15. 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..."
16. The Government, relying on the information provided by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, stated that "the time-limit, established by the Russian civil procedural law for the examination of the applicant's case, had been substantially violated". They further stressed that the length of the proceedings in the applicant's case had been excessive, in violation of the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
A. Admissibility
17. The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 2 August 1999 and ended on 22 April 2005 when the St. Petersburg City Court refused to examine the applicant's appeal against the decision of 15 December 2004. It thus lasted approximately five years and nine months for two instances.
18. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
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 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).
20. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above).
21. Turning to the present case, the Court observes substantial delays caused by the transfer of the case to the higher-instance court and prosecutor's office, change in the composition of the bench, failure to fix hearings, judge's illness and his participation in unrelated proceedings (see paragraphs 7 - 9 above). The failure to comply with domestic time-limits was acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Court is also mindful of the Government's assertion that the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was violated in the applicant's case.
22. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
23. The applicant further complained under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention that the decisions of 2000 concerning the payment of the court fees had been unfair and that he had been forced to work in ord
> 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
