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 RAHIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application
no. 21674/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 January
2008
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 Rahimova v. Azerbaijan,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Nina Vajić,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 December 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 21674/05) against the Republic
of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national,
Ms Natalia Onufriyevna Rahimova (Nataliya
Onufriyevna Rəhimova – “the applicant”),
on 2 June 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms S. Suleymanova, a lawyer practising
in Baku. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Asgarov.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that the civil proceedings in the
domestic courts had failed to meet the requirement of “reasonable
time” and that, as a result, her right to respect for her home
and her property rights had been violated.
- On
29 May 2006 the President of the Chamber decided to give notice of
the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29
§ 3 of the Convention, the Court decided to examine the merits
of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
- Both
the Government and the applicant failed to submit any observations on
the admissibility and merits of the application within the
time-limits specified by the Court. However, in her letter of 2
October 2007, the applicant indicated her intention to pursue the
application on the basis of the materials available in the case file.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1949.
- The
applicant lived with her family in an apartment in Baku. On
18 November 1999 her apartment was damaged by fire caused by the
occupants of the neighbouring apartment. The neighbouring apartment
was owned by A., a police officer. According to the applicant, her
apartment became unfit to live in and she and her family had to move
out and find temporary accommodation.
- On
15 January 2001 the applicant brought an action against A., seeking
monetary compensation of an amount equivalent to 10,000 US dollars
for damage caused to her apartment. The Sabunchu District Court
instituted civil proceedings.
- It
appears that for several years after this the Sabunchu District Court
fixed dates for several hearings, all of which were postponed either
due to the defendant's failure to appear or for other unspecified
reasons.
- On
12 August and 29 September 2003 the applicant sent two similar
letters to the President of the Sabunchu District Court, complaining
of the court's failure to conduct the proceedings in a timely manner.
- On
23 June 2004 and 15 December 2004 the applicant complained to the
Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman about the Sabunchu District
Court's failure to examine her case.
- On
16 February 2005 she wrote a letter addressed to the President, Chief
Prosecutor, President of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of
Appeal, Chairman of the Milli Majlis and other authorities,
complaining about the length of proceedings in the first-instance
court.
- It
is unclear whether the applicant received any replies to her letters.
- In
the meantime, on an unspecified date in August 2004 the Sabunchu
District Court sought an expert opinion on the damage caused to the
applicant's apartment by the fire. On 27 August 2004 the expert
issued an opinion, according to which the damage was estimated at
2,537,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZM).
- On
31 January 2005 the Sabunchu District Court held a hearing and
delivered its judgment, partially upholding the applicant's claim and
awarding her AZM 2,637,000. This amount included compensation for
damage of the amount estimated by the expert, as well as compensation
for court fees paid by the applicant. According to the applicant, she
received the full text of the judgment on 31 May 2005.
- The
applicant lodged an appeal, claiming that the amount awarded was too
low and did not reflect the actual damage caused. On 13 July 2005 the
Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court's judgment. Following
an appeal in cassation by the applicant, on 6 October 2005 the
Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' judgments.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- In
accordance with Article 172.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2000,
a court of first instance must examine a civil case and deliver a
judgment within three months of the date the civil action is lodged
with the court. Shorter examination periods are required for certain
categories of cases (Articles 172.2 and 172.3).
- Immediately
after the conclusion of the last hearing of the case, the
first-instance court must deliberate and deliver a judgment (Articles
213 and 214.1). The full text of the judgment must be drafted at this
time and sent to the parties within three days (Articles 227.1 and
227.3).
- In
complex cases, the court may decide to deliver only the operative
provisions of the judgment after the hearing (Article 214.3). In such
an event, the parties and their representatives must be informed of
the date when the full text of the judgment will be available
(Article 214.4).
- In
exceptional circumstances where the case is particularly complex, the
first-instance court may deliver either the full judgment or its
operative provisions no later than three days after the end of the
judicial examination of the case (Article 215). If only the operative
provisions of the judgment have been delivered, the full text of the
judgment must be drafted within the next ten days. The presiding
judge must inform the parties of the date when the full text of the
judgment will be available (Article 227.2).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained that the length of the civil
proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement of 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
applicant also complained of a lack of an effective remedy within the
meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of her complaint
of the excessive length of proceedings. This provision 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.”
- As
both parties failed to submit any observations within the time limits
indicated by the Court, the Court will examine the complaints on the
basis of the materials available.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that these complaints are not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on
any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
- The
Court observes that the civil proceedings in the present case were
instituted on 15 January 2001 and ended with the Supreme Court's
final decision of 6 October 2005. Thus, in total,
the proceedings in three instances lasted more than four years and
eight months.
- As
the Convention entered into force with respect to Azerbaijan on 15
April 2002, the period to be taken into consideration in the present
case amounted to three years, five months and twenty-three days in
the post ratification period. Nevertheless, in order to
determine the reasonableness of the length of time in question,
regard must also be had to the state of affairs that existed at the
beginning of the period under consideration (see, for example,
Proszak v. Poland, judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1997 VIII, p. 2772, §
31).
27. The
reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the
light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had
to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the
complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of
the competent authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant
(see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v.
France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 II, and
Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19,
ECHR 2000 IV).
- As
the proceedings concerned compensation for damage caused to the
applicant's apartment, the Court considers that much was at stake for
the applicant and that special diligence was required from the
domestic courts in view of the possible consequences which the
excessive length of proceedings might have on her enjoyment of her
home and possessions.
- Having
regard to the nature of the case, the Court finds that it was not
complex. Apart from hearing the parties, the only procedural action
undertaken by the courts was obtaining an expert opinion on the
damage caused to the applicant's apartment.
- Furthermore,
nothing in the case file indicates that the applicant's conduct
contributed to the length of the proceedings. As regards the conduct
of the authorities, the Court notes that, although the appellate and
cassation proceedings, taken separately, could not be considered
excessively protracted, there was a considerable delay at the
first-instance stage of the proceedings (compare with, mutatis
mutandis, Aresti Charalambous v. Cyprus, no.
43151/04, § 45, 19 July 2007). In particular, the first-instance
proceedings lasted more than four years (from 15 January 2001 to
31 January 2005), out of which more than two years and nine
months fell within the period after the Convention's entry into force
with respect to Azerbaijan on 15 April 2002. The only event that
appears to have happened during this period was the obtaining of the
expert opinion in August 2004. However, there were significant
periods of inactivity, both prior to this event and between this
event and the hearing held on 31 January 2005. Moreover, the full
text of the Sabunchu District Court's judgment of 31 January
2005 was made available to the applicant with a delay of four months.
This also contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings, as the
applicant could not appeal to the higher courts during this period.
- In
such circumstances, the Court considers that, in the present case,
the significant and unjustified periods of inactivity which occurred
at the first-instance stage contributed significantly to the
prolongation of the proceedings as a whole. In this connection, the
Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on
the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in
such a way that their courts can meet each of the requirements of
that provision, including the obligation to hear cases within a
reasonable time (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above,
§ 74, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
45, ECHR 2000 VII).
- Having
regard to the considerations above, the Court finds 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 violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. Article 13 of the Convention
- 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). A remedy is “effective” if it can be used
either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or
to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have
already occurred (ibid., §§ 157-59).
- Although
the applicant has tried, unsuccessfully, to have the proceedings
expedited by complaining to various domestic authorities (see
paragraphs 10-13 above), it does not appear that, at the relevant
time, there was an effective domestic remedy available to the
applicant in respect of the length of the proceedings. No information
has been forthcoming from the Government to 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, among many other authorities, Kormacheva v. Russia,
no. 53084/99, § 61, 29 January 2004; Merit v. Ukraine,
no. 66561/01, § 78, 30 March 2004; and Gavrielides v. Cyprus,
no. 15940/02, §§ 51-52, 1 June 2006).
- Accordingly,
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.
II. ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL
No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the domestic courts' failure to hear her
case within a reasonable time had resulted in a violation of her
right to respect for her home, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the
Convention, which provides as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.”
- She
also complained that the excessive length of the proceedings had led
to a violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
- The
Court notes that these complaints are linked to those examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
- However,
having regard to its findings in paragraphs 31-32 above, the Court
considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, no separate
issues arise under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 and, therefore, it is not necessary to examine these
complaints separately.
III. ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention, in
conjunction with her other complaints, that she had been
discriminated against. She contended that the domestic courts had
been biased in the defendant's favour, because he was a police
officer.
- In
the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the
matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that
they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the right set
out in Article 14 of the Convention. It follows that this
complaint is manifestly ill founded and must be rejected in
accordance with 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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in the manner
required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court
considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaints under Articles 6 §
1, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention 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 that there is no need to examine the
complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
- Holds that there is no call to award any just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren
Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President