Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Маркова (Markova) против России» [англ.]

000). Therefore, the delays resulting from the judge's absence are imputable to the State.
24. The Court also notes a prolonged period of inactivity relating to the pending expert examination. In particular, almost eighteen months elapsed from 17 February 1999, when the District Court ordered an expert examination and suspended the proceedings, to 3 August 2000, when the proceedings were resumed without any expert opinion having been prepared, since the parties refused to pay for it. The Court reiterates that the principal responsibility for delay due to expert opinions rests ultimately with the State (see Capuano v. Italy, 25 June 1987, § 32, Series A No. 119, and Volovich v. Russia, No. 10374/02, § 30, 5 October 2006).
25. 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).
26. 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. Indeed the Government acknowledged that the proceedings had been unreasonably long. Therefore, 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.
27. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

28. The applicant further complained that she had no effective remedies for her complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention.
29. The Government did not comment on this issue.
30. The Court refers to its finding in paragraph 21 above and notes that this complaint is linked to the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
31. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided her with adequate redress for the delays that had already occurred (see {Kudla}, cited above, § 159; Kormacheva v. Russia, No. 53084/99, §§ 61 - 62, 29 January 2004; and Kuzin v. Russia, No. 22118/02, §§ 42 - 46, 9 June 2005).
32. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicant had no domestic remedy whereby she could enforce her right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

33. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts had only granted her action in part, that they had incorrectly assessed the facts and wrongly calculated the compensation, and that the defendant could have been assisted by a lawyer whereas she could not afford one.
34. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that they 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.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

35. Article 41 of the Convention provid



> 1 2 3 4

	Поделиться:	Tweet