BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF
SHNEYDERMAN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 36045/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11
January 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Shneyderman v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S.
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 7 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 36045/02) against the
Russian Federation lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Russian national, Mr Mark
Abramovich Shneyderman (“the applicant”), on 11 September
2002.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
30 August 2005 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1935 and lives in the village of Kresty in the
Tula Region.
- On
20 October 1993 the applicant sued the Chernskiy District Social
Security Services for pension arrears, an increase of his monthly
pension and compensation for damage.
- On
16 December 1993 the Chernskiy District Court accepted the action in
full. The judgment was quashed on 1 February 1994 and the case
was remitted for a fresh examination.
- On
15 June 1998 the Chernskiy District Court partly accepted the
applicant's action and decided to determine his claim concerning
compensation for damage in separate proceedings.
- The
Social Services appealed against the judgment to the Tula Regional
Court. The first appeal hearing was fixed for 27 August 1998.
However, it was adjourned until 6 October 1998 because the respondent
did not attend.
- On
6 October 1998 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15
June 1998 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
- The case was assigned to the judge Isayev and the
first hearing was fixed for 12 May 1999. That hearing was adjourned
upon the parties' request until 23 September 1999.
- On
23 August 2000 the Chernskiy District Court received the applicant's
amended statement of claims.
- On 24 January 2001 the judge Milyokhin was assigned to
the case and on 2 July 2001 he scheduled a preliminary hearing. The
following hearing, fixed for 7 August 2001, was adjourned because the
representative of the Social Services defaulted.
- At
the hearing of 7 August 2001 the applicant successfully amended his
claims and asked to invite the Tula Regional Department of the Social
Protection of Population to the proceedings.
- The
following hearing, fixed for 1 November 2001, was adjourned until 14
December 2001 because the respondent defaulted.
- On 14 December 2001 the Chernskiy District Court
stayed the proceedings in the applicant's case to await the outcome
of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court of the Russian
Federation. The Constitutional Court was to give interpretation of
the pension legislation applicable to the applicant's case. The
decision of 14 December 2001 was upheld on appeal on 12 March
2002.
- On 12 March 2003 the Chernskiy District Court resumed
the proceedings and fixed a hearing for 2 April 2003. That hearing
was adjourned until 28 April 2003 to allow the respondent to study
the case-file. The applicant once again amended his claims at the
hearing of 28 April 2003.
- Of
the five hearings fixed between 28 April 2003 and 30 November 2005,
one hearing was adjourned because the respondent defaulted and three
were adjourned upon the applicant's request.
- On
8 December 2005 the Chernskiy District Court dismissed the
applicant's action. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tula
Regional Court on 9 February 2006.
- On
numerous occasions the applicant unsuccessfully complained about the
excessive length of the proceedings in his case to the prosecutor of
the Tula Region and the Judicial Qualification Board of the Tula
Region.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- 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...”
- The
period to be taken into consideration began only on 5 May 1998, when
the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. However, in
assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that
date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
The period in question ended on 9 February 2006 when the Tula
Regional Court issued the final judgment. It thus lasted
approximately seven years and nine months before courts of two levels
of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- 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
- The
Government argued that the case had been complex as it had concerned
interpretation of pension legislation and its application to the
applicant's case. The applicant had caused delays by amending his
claims on 23 August 2000 and 28 April 2003 and asking for adjournment
of four hearings. He had also defaulted on one occasion. Further
delays in the proceedings had been caused by adjournment in December
2001 and the respondent's failure to attend at least four hearings.
- The
applicant averred that he could not be blamed for amending his claims
as he had been forced to do so due to frequent economic changes while
the proceedings had been pending.
- 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).
- The
Court agrees that the proceedings at issue were complex. However, it
cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was
such as to justify the overall length of the proceedings. Moreover,
the Court considers that special diligence is necessary in disputes
concerning the person's means of subsistence, such as pensions.
- As
concerns the applicant's conduct, the Court is not convinced by the
Government's argument that the applicant should be held responsible
for amending his claims and asking to adjourn hearings in order to
obtain additional evidence. It has been the Court's constant approach
that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the
resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interests
(see Skorobogatova v. Russia, no. 33914/02, § 47, 1
December 2005). The Court further considers negligible the delay
caused by the applicant's failure to attend one hearing.
- The
Court, however, observes the substantial periods of inactivity for
which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation,
are attributable to the domestic courts. It took them up to seven
months to fix hearings. A delay of approximately eighteen months was
caused by the reassignment of the case from one presiding judge to
another one (see paragraphs 10 and 12 above). The Court also notes a
delay of approximately fifteen months caused by the stay in the
proceedings awaiting the opinion of the Constitutional Court (see
paragraphs 15 and 16 above). The Court is not called upon to
determine the reason for the delay in the preparation of the
Constitutional Court's decision, because Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their
judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the
obligation to decide cases within a reasonable time (see, among other
authorities, Löffler v. Austria, no. 30546/96, § 57,
3 October 2000). The Court observes that the principal responsibility
for that delay rests ultimately with the State. The same applies to
delays resulting from the failure to attend hearings by the
respondent, a State body (see Sokolov v. Russia, no. 3734/02,
§ 40, 22 September 2005).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to the
overall length of the proceedings and what was at stake for the
applicant, 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that all his complaints about the
excessive length of the proceedings had been futile. The Court
considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 13
of the Convention which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Government contested the applicant's arguments.
A. Admissibility
- 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
- 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
Kudła 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 him with adequate redress for delays that had already
occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January
2004, § 64).
- Accordingly,
the Court considers that in the present case there has been a
violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a
remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant
could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case
heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention.
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
that the courts had wrongly interpreted and applied law and
incorrectly assessed evidence in his case.
- In
this respect the Court recalls that it is not a court of appeal from
the decisions of domestic courts and that, as a general rule, it is
for those courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court's task
under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a
whole were fair (see, among many authorities, García Ruiz
v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR
1999-I). On the basis of the materials submitted by the applicant,
the Court notes that within the framework of the civil proceedings
the applicant was able to introduce all necessary arguments in
defence of his interests, and the judicial authorities gave them due
consideration. His claims were examined on two levels of jurisdiction
and dismissed. The decisions of the domestic courts do not appear
unreasonable or arbitrary.
- 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
- 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
- The
applicant claimed 60,665 Russian roubles in respect of pecuniary
damage. The sum represented pension payments which the applicant had
expected to receive for the period of thirteen years. He further
claimed 100,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that no casual link had been shown between the
facts of the case and the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.
They further noted that the applicant's claims in respect of
non-pecuniary damage were excessive.
-
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 because of an unreasonable
length of the proceedings in his case and the lack of an effective
remedy for a breach of the requirement to hear his case within a
reasonable time. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it
awards the applicant EUR 6,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be charged on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
-
The applicant did not make any claims for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic court and before the Court.
- Accordingly,
the Court does not award anything under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaints concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings and absence of effective remedy admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 6,200 (six
thousand and two hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the
date of the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
