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 SEVOSTYANOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 4665/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 October
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sevostyanova v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Commitee
composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Dean Spielmann,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 September 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 4665/04) 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 Valentina Aleksandrovna
Sevostyanova (“the applicant”), on 15 December 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr A. Savenkov, former acting representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
11 March 2008 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with
Protocol No. 14, the application is assigned to a Committee of
three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Chelyabinsk.
- On
30 September 1996 the applicant sued Chelyabinsk municipal
hospital No. 9 (Городская
клиническая
больница
№ 9) seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage allegedly caused by medical malpractice. In particular, the
applicant submitted that she had become disabled as a result of a
poorly performed leg surgery.
- On
6 June 1997 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk (“the
District Court”) ordered a medical examination and stayed the
proceedings.
- On
28 May 1998 the District Court received a letter from head of the
State regional forensic examinations bureau containing a request to
provide a copy of the court’s decision and to obtain certain
medical documents. The court was also informed that it was necessary
to make an advance payment for the examination.
- On
19 June 1998 the District Court demanded the case file back from the
forensic examinations bureau.
- Upon
receiving the case file, on 21 October 1998 the District Court
scheduled a hearing to decide whether it was necessary to conduct a
medical examination and to allocate the expenses.
- On
23 February 1999 the case file was sent back to the forensic
examinations bureau.
- In
April and June 1999 the court sent inquiries to the State health care
department and to the municipal hospital in an effort to obtain the
documents required for the medical examination.
- On
27 December 1999 the remaining documents were sent to the forensic
examinations bureau.
- On
16 February 2000 head of the forensic examinations bureau decided to
return the case file to the court as, in his opinion, the court’s
order for a medical examination was addressed to the State health
care department.
- On
10 April 2000 the District Court again sent the case file to the
forensic examinations bureau with explanations.
- On
27 September 2000, 15 January, 30 July and 21 August 2001 the
District Court inquired with the forensic examinations bureau about
the reasons of the delay in carrying out the examination.
- On
15 August 2001 the forensic examinations bureau informed the court of
the cost of the pending examination.
- On
24 August 2001 the court invited the applicant to make the payment
but she refused.
- On
7 September 2001, following the applicant’s complaint of the
delays in her proceedings to the Chelyabinsk Regional Court (“the
Regional Court”), the judge in charge of the applicant’s
case informed her in a letter about the reasons of the delays. The
Court is not in possession of this document.
- Following
the respondent’s refusal to pay for the medical examination, on
2 October 2001 the District Court demanded the case file back from
the forensic examinations bureau.
- On
29 October 2001 the applicant amended her claims. The court adjourned
the hearing and invited the applicant’s surgeon as a third
party to the proceedings.
- By
a judgment of 13 November 2001 the District Court dismissed the
applicant’s claims. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the
Regional Court on 11 February 2002.
- On
12 March 2002 the applicant requested that the region’s
prosecutor lodge an extraordinary appeal for supervisory review of
the court decisions adopted in her case.
- The
prosecutor’s appeal was granted, and on 15 May 2002 the
Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 November
2001 and the appeal decision of 11 February 2002 by way of
supervisory review, and remitted the case to the first instance for
fresh consideration. The court held that a medical examination had
been necessary to resolve the dispute and that the applicant had not
been obliged by law to bear its costs. In addition, the Presidium
issued a special statement in which it reprimanded acting president
of the District Court for the breach of procedural time-limits for
preparation and examination of the case.
- By
a decision of 15 August 2002 the District Court again commissioned a
medical examination, allocating the costs to the respondent. The
examination was held between 5 and 18 February 2003, and on 3 April
2003 the case file together with the experts’ report arrived to
the court.
- The
hearing of 29 April 2003 was adjourned to 12 May 2003 to give the
applicant time to familiarise herself with the experts’ report.
- By
a judgment of 12 May 2003 the District Court dismissed the
applicant’s claims. On 28 July 2003 the Regional Court upheld
the judgment.
- On
28 October 2003 the Presidium of the Regional Court rejected the
applicant’s application for supervisory review of the above
decisions.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in her case
was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement as
provided in Article 6 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
Court is satisfied that the proceedings lasted from 30 September 1996
to 28 July 2003, when the domestic courts considered the applicant’s
case twice at two levels of jurisdiction. The period from 11 February
to 15 May 2002 has to be excluded from the overall length as the
case was not pending, and so does the part of the proceedings that
occurred before 5 May 1998, the date of entry into force of the
Convention in respect of Russia. Thus, the aggregate length of the
proceedings within the Court’s competence ratione temporis
amounts approximately to five years.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint of undue
length of the proceedings was manifestly ill-founded and should be
declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention.
- 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 contested the applicant’s arguments in substance. In
particular, they argued that the case had been complex due to the
necessity to conduct a medical examination and to engage third
parties. They further alleged that the applicant bore a certain
responsibility for the delays because she had amended her claims,
refused to pay for the medical examination and lodged complaints to
the appeal court and the supervisory instance.
- The
applicant did not submit any further comments on the merits.
- 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, among other
authorities, Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, 13 July
1983, p. 11, § 24, Series A no. 66; see also Pélissier
and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR
1999-II).
- The
Court considers that even though the applicant’s case involved
allegations of medical malpractice and required the taking of an
expert opinion, it was not particularly complex. The domestic courts
held only a small number of hearings and relied almost fully on the
conclusions of the experts’ report to form their opinion.
- With
regard to the Government’s argument concerning the applicant’s
own responsibility for the delays, the Court reiterates that an
applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources
afforded by the national law in defence of his interests (see,
mutatis mutandis, Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8
June 1995, § 66, Series A no. 319 A). In any event,
the delays attributable to the applicant and resulting from such
actions as amendment of claims and complaints to the superior courts
are entirely insignificant in relation to the overall length of the
proceedings.
- Turning
to the conduct of the authorities, the Court observes one major
deficiency that occurred in the course of the proceedings. It recalls
that between 5 May 1998 and 2 October 2001, that is for three years
and five months, the proceedings were effectively thwarted, mostly
due to unexplained procrastination in carrying out of the medical
examination and flawed cooperation between the district court and the
forensic examinations bureau. The Court is particularly mindful that
the authorities substantially acknowledged the fact of the delays, as
evidenced in the correspondence between the district court and the
forensic examinations bureau and in the reprimand issued by the
supervisory instance in respect of the district court. It recalls in
this respect that the principal responsibility for the delay due to
the expert opinions rests ultimately with the State (see Capuano
v. Italy, 25 June 1987, § 32, Series A no. 119). Seeing
that the delay associated with the taking of an expert opinion
accounted for most of the length of the proceedings in the
applicant’s case, the Court is of the opinion that the
reasonable expedition displayed by the courts subsequently is not
sufficient to redress the long period of inactivity.
- Regarding
what was at stake for the applicant, the Court recalls that the case
concerned a dispute over allegations of medical malpractice as a
result of which the applicant allegedly became disabled and was
seeking compensation. It considers that those circumstances required
a particular diligence on the part of the domestic authorities.
- The
foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to
conclude that that the “reasonable time” requirement has
been breached in the applicant’s case.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained that the courts unlawfully made her pay for
the medical examination, belatedly informed her about the expert
report which she was unable to challenge, mistakenly relied on the
experts’ wrong conclusions, refused to assist her in collecting
evidence and dismissed her application for supervisory review of the
unfavourable judgments.
- Having
regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is
no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in
these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
III. 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.”
- Regarding
her claims for just satisfaction, in her letter of 10 September
2008 the applicant referred the Court to her statement of claims
lodged with the domestic court. However, the Court observes that the
suffering inflicted as a result of alleged medical malpractice has no
relation to the damage that could have been sustained by the
applicant as a result of the violation found by the Court above. In
addition, the applicant amended her claims on a few occasions
throughout the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court considers that the
just satisfaction claims are not sufficiently well founded and
that there is no call to award the applicant any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning undue length
of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the undue length of the
proceedings.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev
Deputy Registrar President
