een unable to attend.
12. On 8 September 2000 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 24 August 2000 and ordered the proceedings to be resumed. A hearing was listed for 6 December 2000.
13. From 6 December 2000 to 3 June 2002 several hearings were adjourned either because the defendant had not attended or had asked for an adjournment or because the judge was busy on another case.
14. On 3 June 2002 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant's action in part and awarded her 10,000 Russian roubles as compensation for damage.
15. On 22 October 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
B. Complaints about the excessive length
of the compensation proceedings
16. On many occasions in 2001 - 2002 the applicant complained to various domestic officials, including the Supreme Judicial Appointments Board, the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of Russia, the Moscow City Court, and the Ministry of Justice, of the excessive length of the proceedings in her case.
17. It appears that her complaints were either left unanswered or redirected to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
18. 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..."
19. The Government acknowledged that the proceedings in the applicant's case had been unreasonably long.
20. The Court observes that the parties' submissions differ as to whether the proceedings commenced in November 1996 or January 1997. However, the Court will consider only the period of the proceedings which began on 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of the proceedings at the time. The period in question ended on 22 October 2002 with the decision of the Moscow City Court. Thus the Court has competence ratione temporis to examine the period of approximately four years and six months. During that period the case was examined at two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
21. 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
22. 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). In addition, only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], No. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI).
23. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that several delays in the proceedings were caused because the judge was busy on another case. In this connection the Court reiterates that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision within a reasonable time (see {Loffler} v. Austria, No. 30546/96, § 21, 3 October 2
> 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
