dings the defendant defaulted on at least ten occasions which resulted in considerable delays. There is no indication that the court reacted in any way to that behaviour. Accordingly, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not avail themselves of the measures available to them under national law to discipline the parties to the proceedings and to ensure that the case be heard within a reasonable time (see, mutatis mutandis, {Kusmierek} v. Poland, No. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004).
36. The Court also finds it peculiar that in a case which was of no particular complexity several hearings had to be adjourned in order for additional evidence to be produced (compare with Di Pede v. Italy, 26 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
37. 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).
38. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 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
39. Lastly, the Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by her. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints do 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
40. 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 allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
41. The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
42. The Government considered this claim to be excessive and unreasonable.
43. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress, anxiety and frustration exacerbated by the unreasonable length of the proceedings. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
44. The applicant also claimed 15,193 Russian roubles for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts.
45. The Government contested the claim.
46. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the applicant's claim because there is no causal link between the violation found and those expenses.
C. Default interest
47. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be b
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
