[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SAVENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 28639/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
June 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 Savenko v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 28639/03) 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, Ms Luiza
Georgiyevna Savenko (“the applicant”), on 11 August 2003.
- 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
10 April 2006 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 1937 and lives in Voronezh.
A. Proceedings in the commercial courts
- In
the 1990s the applicant was a co-owner and the head of a private
enterprise “Ekolog” (hereafter – the “Ekolog”
company).
- From
1991 to 1994 the “Ekolog” company was a party to several
disputes before the commercial courts. The disputes concerned office
premises acquired by the “Ekolog” company from a
municipal enterprise. On 1 November 1993, 23 May, 11 July and
26 August 1994 the Voronezh Commercial Court, by final
judgments, ruled in favour of the “Ekolog” company's
adversaries.
- On
20 December 1994 the Voronezh Town Council leased the office premises
to Mr B. In February 1995 bailiffs forced the “Ekolog”
company to vacate the premises and six months later Mr B. bought
them.
B. Proceedings in the courts of general jurisdiction.
1. Action for invalidation of a lease
- On 4 December 1997 the applicant and the “Ekolog”
company lodged an action against the Voronezh Town Council seeking
invalidation of the lease of 20 December 1994. The Leninskiy District
Court of Voronezh received the statement of claim and judge I. was
assigned to the case. The applicant subsequently submitted an amended
statement of claim, asking the District Court to invite Mr B. to the
proceedings in the capacity of a defendant. She sought compensation
for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- Following the applicant's complaint to the Voronezh
Regional Court about the excessive length of the proceedings in the
case, on 26 August 1999 the President of the Leninskiy District Court
informed the applicant that the first hearing was listed for
28 September 1999. That hearing was adjourned until 6 October
1999 because the Council had not received a copy of the statement of
claim.
- The
following two hearings fixed between 6 October 1999 and 2 June
2000 were postponed owing to the absence of the Council's
representative.
2. Action for correction of registration logs in
respect of the disputed property
- On
23 July 1999 the applicant and the “Ekolog” company sued
the Voronezh Town and Leninskiy District Councils for correction of
registration logs in respect of the office premises. After the
Leninskiy District Court had received the statement of claim, judge
I. was assigned to the case.
- The first hearing was fixed for 28 September 1999. As
it appears from the list of events attached to the Government's
memorandum, the next hearing was listed for 29 November 2000. On that
date judge I. accepted amendments to the applicant's statement of
claim.
3. Two actions for transfer of the lease rights and
acknowledgment of the fact
- On
6 December 1999 the “Ekolog” company lodged an action
against the Voronezh Town Council seeking the transfer of the lease
rights in respect of the office premises. On the same day the
applicant asked the Leninksiy District Court to confirm that she had
lived in the disputed premises. Both cases were received by the
Leninskiy District Court and assigned to judge I.
4. Action for invalidation of legal acts in respect of
the premises
- On
5 January 2001 the applicant asked the Leninskiy District Court to
invalidate certain legal acts issued by the Voronezh Town Council in
respect of the office premises.
- On
2 February 2001 judge I. accepted the case file and fixed the first
hearing for 24 April 2001.
5. Joined proceedings
- In
2001 judge I. resigned and judge Y. took over her cases. On 27 August
2001 judge Y. joined the five sets of the proceedings initiated by
the applicant and the “Ekolog” company and listed the
first hearing for 3 December 2001.
- Of
the three hearings fixed between 3 December 2001 and 24 June 2002,
two were adjourned because the defendants had defaulted and one was
postponed for the purpose of obtaining information from the
commercial courts.
- On 2 October 2002 the Leninskiy District Court
discontinued the proceedings because the case was within the
subject-matter jurisdiction of a commercial court. That decision was
quashed on 27 February 2003 by the Voronezh Regional Court. The case
was remitted to the Leninskiy District Court for a fresh examination
on the merits.
- On
19 March 2003 judge Y. received the case file and listed the first
hearing for 24 April 2003. That hearing was adjourned because the
defendants did not attend.
- Of
the ten hearings fixed between 18 August 2003 and 28 May 2004, four
hearings were adjourned owing to the defendants' absence and six
hearings were postponed upon the parties' requests for provision of
additional evidence.
- On
28 May 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh dismissed the
applicant's claims. The District Court held that in 1993 and 1994 the
commercial courts had invalidated the sales-purchase agreement
between the municipal enterprise and the “Ekolog” company
in respect of the premises. Mr B. had lawfully acquired the title to
the premises in 1994 and thus he was their legitimate owner. The
District Court also noted that the applicant had never lived in the
premises.
- On
23 November 2004 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment.
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 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 23 November 2004 when the Voronezh
Regional Court issued the final judgment. The proceedings accordingly
lasted approximately six years and seven months before two levels of
jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The applicant's status as a “victim” of the alleged
violations
- The
Court reiterates that the term “victim” in Article 34 of
the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or
omission which is at issue. As regards the complaint under Article 6
§ 1, the Court reiterates that a person cannot complain about a
violation of his or her rights in the proceedings, to which he or she
was not a party, despite the fact that she or he was a shareholder
and/or executive director of the company which was the party to the
proceedings (see, e.g., F. Santos Lda. and Fachadas v. Portugal
(dec.), no. 49020/99, 19 September 2000; Pires da Silva and
Pereira v. Portugal, no. 19157/91, Commission decision of 5 July
1993).
- Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the
applicant was a party to the proceedings in her personal capacity.
She acted in the capacity of a co-plaintiff, lodging separate claims
and seeking protection of her pecuniary rights. The domestic courts
examined both the applicant's and her company's claims and dismissed
them. It follows that the applicant can claim to be a “victim”
of the alleged violation of Article 6 (see, by contrast, Nosov
v. Russia (dec.), no.0877/02, 20 October 2005).
- The
Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government argued that the proceedings were complex. Delays had been
caused by the applicant's frequent amendments to the claims and her
petitions for adjournment of the proceedings in order to obtain
additional evidence.
- The
applicant maintained her claims.
- 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court accepts that the proceedings at issue were complex as they
required examination of several joined claims and voluminous
documents. However, the Court cannot accept that the complexity of
the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length
of the proceedings.
- As
concerns the applicant's conduct, the Court notes the Government's
argument that she should be held responsible for amending her claims
and seeking to obtain additional evidence. The Court has already
considered that the task of the domestic courts was made more
difficult by the fact that the applicant and her company had
submitted several actions which were subsequently joined. At the same
time the Government only indicated two instances when the applicant
had amended her claims. The delay incurred therefrom was negligible.
The Court further observes that five hearings were adjourned upon the
applicant's request for provision of additional evidence. The
aggregated delay incurred therefrom amounted to approximately five
months. Although the applicant's efforts to ensure the best
representation of her interests are understandable, the manner in
which she exercised her procedural rights undoubtedly contributed to
the prolongation of the proceedings.
- As
regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court considers that the
overall period less the period attributable to the applicant's
conduct leaves the authorities accountable for six years and two
months. The Court observes that substantial periods of inactivity,
for which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory
explanation, are attributable to the domestic courts. In particular,
delays of up to twenty months occurred between the registration of
the suits and the first hearings (see, for example, paragraphs 8 and
9 above). It also took the District Court up to fourteen months to
fix hearings (see paragraph 12 above). Furthermore, the Court finds
it striking that almost five years after the registration of the
first suit the District Court decided that it had no jurisdiction
over the case and transferred it to a commercial court (see paragraph
18 above).
- Having
regard to this as well as all the material submitted to it and the
overall length of the proceedings, 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 that the domestic legal system had
failed to afford her an effective remedy against the excessive length
of proceedings. 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 her 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 her right to have her case
heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Invoking
Articles 1, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 53 and 55 of the Convention,
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, the
applicant further complained that the proceedings before the
commercial courts had been unfair and excessively long, that the
commercial courts had unlawfully invalidated her company's title to
the disputed premises, that she and her company had been forced to
vacate the premises in 1995, and that the proceedings against Mr B.
and the Voronezh town administration had been unfair as the domestic
courts had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the law.
- 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
- 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 205,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing cumulative loss incurred due to the invalidation of the
“Ekolog” company's title to the disputed premises. She
further claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that there was no causal link between the
alleged violations and the pecuniary damage claimed. In any event,
the claims were excessive and unreasonable.
- 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 her case and the lack of an effective remedy
for a breach of the requirement to hear her case within a reasonable
time. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the
applicant EUR 3,000 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 3,000
(three thousand 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 14 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
