ot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of proceedings.
32. As regards the applicant's conduct, the Court notes that she did not contest the Government's submissions regarding the delays which occurred because of her failure to appear at hearings. Therefore, the Court may conclude she may be deemed responsible for four months' delay. However, the Court cannot agree that the applicant should be held responsible for the delays occurred as a result of the decision of 11 April 2002. It observes that on 21 January 2003 the Regional Court quashed that decision on the applicant's appeal, having found that the she had failed to appear at two hearings for valid reasons. In sum, the Court considers that the applicant was not responsible for any substantial delays in the proceedings.
33. As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court notes the Government's argument that during the period under consideration the domestic authorities examined the case in several rounds of proceedings. However, the Court does not share the Government's view that the quashing of the lower courts' decisions was not the result of mistakes committed by the judges. The Court observes that on 13 January 1999 the supervisory court quashed the decisions of lower courts on the ground of serious shortcomings and it gave them detailed indications as to how to proceed with the case. However, the Town Court had failed to implement those instructions and the appeal court quashed its decision of 26 October 1999 on those grounds. It had also pointed out other shortcomings in the reasoning of the Town Court's judgment. In the next round of proceedings the Town Court had not followed the appeal court's indications, which led to a new round of proceedings. The Court considers that the shifting of the case between several levels of jurisdictions several times was the main reason for the lengthy examination of the case. Those delays are entirely attributable to the domestic authorities and their failure to examine the case properly. The fact that the domestic courts heard the case several times did not absolve them from complying with the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 (see Litoselitis v. Greece, No. 62771/00, § 32, 5 February 2004).
34. Finally, the Court observes that the applicant was already very elderly when she brought her action and her claim concerned her flat. The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute and the applicant's advanced age called for particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts.
35. In the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, 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 violation of Article 6 of the Convention
36. The applicant lastly complained that the proceedings against the housing maintenance service had been unfair because the domestic courts had not granted her claims in full. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as this complaint falls within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
37. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned
> 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
