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..."
18. The Government contested that argument.
19. The period to be taken into consideration began in September 2000 and ended in April 2006 when the judgment in the applicant's case became final. It thus lasted for about five and a half years for one level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
20. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as she had not complained of the delay in the examination of her case to the court's president or the Qualification Board of Judges. Nor had she requested that her case be transferred to another judge.
21. The Court notes that the Government did not indicate whether and, if so, how the applicant could obtain relief - either preventive or compensatory - by having recourse to the mentioned authorities. It was not suggested that these remedies could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided her with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred. Nor did the Government supply any example from domestic practice showing that, by using the means in question, it was possible for the applicant to obtain such a relief (see Kormacheva v. Russia, No. 53084/99, §§ 61 - 64, 29 January 2004, and Olshannikova v. Russia, No. 77089/01, § 44, 29 June 2006). The Court therefore dismisses the Government's non-exhaustion argument.
22. It further 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
23. The Government argued that the case was complex and that the applicant's conduct, notably her request for adjournment on 26 January 2005 and her failure to appear on 23 November 2005, had delayed the proceedings for ten months, and that a further delay of about thirteen months had been caused by the conduct of the other participants to the proceedings. The Government acknowledged that the State was responsible for the delay of two years, nine months and 17 days during the periods from 16 November 2000 to 3 March 2003 and from 29 October 2003 to 29 April 2004.
24. The applicant disagreed, noting, in particular, that on 26 January 2005 her counsel had requested an adjournment of the examination of the case only for three days.
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).
26. The Court does not consider that the present case was particularly complex. Nor is it convinced that the applicant can be blamed for delaying the proceedings for ten months. The court adjourned the hearing at her request on 26 January 2005 and due to her failure to appear on 23 November 2005 for five and four months accordingly. It has not been shown that such long intervals between the hearings in these, as well as in other instances (between 16 May and 29 October 2003, 29 April and 10 November 2004 and between 22 June and 23 November 2005), were justified. The Court further notes with concern the period of total inactivity on the part of the judicial authorities for reasons purely attributable to them during two years and three months from 16 November 2000 to 3 March 2003 and during five months from 29 October 2003 to 29 April 2004.
27. The Court has frequently found violations of
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
