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 DZHIGARKHANOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 38321/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 October
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dzhigarkhanov v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
George Nicolaou,
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. 38321/03) 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, Mr Anatoliy Ivanovich
Dzhigarkhanov (“the applicant”), on 6 November 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at
the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
9 March 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with
Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee.
It was also decided that the Committee would rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 1 of the Convention).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budennovsk of the Stavropol
Region.
- On
5 February 1998 the applicant was stopped by the police and brought
to a sobering-up centre. He was examined by a doctor who found that
he was sober. The applicant was immediately released.
- On
18 November 1998 the applicant sued the local police department for
compensation for unlawful arrest. The applicant’s complaint was
admitted by the Budennovsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region (“the
Town Court”). The first hearing was scheduled for 25 December
1998, but on that date it did not take place. No action was taken on
the case until December 2001.
- On
25 December 2001 the Town Court identified the Ministry of the
Interior Affairs as the respondent and involved the local police
department as a third party in the proceedings.
- On
30 December 2002 the Town Court held in a default judgment that the
applicant’s arrest had been unlawful and partly allowed his
claim for compensation.
- On
29 January 2003 the Town Court granted an extension of the time
allowed for submission by the respondent of their grounds of appeal.
- On
6 February 2003 the Stavropol Regional Court (“the Regional
Court”) overturned the judgment on appeal for failure to notify
the respondent about the hearing in a timely manner and remitted the
case to the first instance.
- On
20 February 2003 the Town Court again allowed the applicant’s
claim in part, but on 23 April 2003 the judgment was set aside on
appeal by the Regional Court for failure to involve the finance
authorities in the proceedings. The appeal court required a new
hearing. It also delivered a special ruling in which it reprimanded
the judge in charge of the applicant’s case for breaches of the
procedural time-limits for consideration of the case.
- On
6 June 2003 the Town Court judge withdrew from the proceedings.
- On
4 July 2003 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims as
unsubstantiated.
- On 20 August 2003 the Regional Court set aside the
judgment on appeal and allowed the applicant’s claim in part.
It held that his arrest had been unlawful and ordered that the
Budennovsk town administration pay the applicant 5,000 Russian
roubles (RUB).
- On
an unspecified day the town administration lodged an application for
supervisory review of the decision of 20 August 2003.
- On
8 December 2003 the Presidium of the Regional Court granted the
application, quashed the judgment of 20 August 2003 for failure to
notify the town administration about the hearing and remitted the
case to the Regional Court.
- On
1 March 2004 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 4 July 2003
and remitted the case to the Town Court.
- On
7 May 2004 the Town Court designated the Ministry of Finance of the
Stavropol Region as a co-respondent.
- On
12 July 2004 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claim in
part and ordered that the Ministry of Finance of the Stavropol Region
pay the applicant RUB 15,000.
- On
8 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the
Convention that the length of the proceedings was unreasonable. The
Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article
6 § 1, the relevant part of 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 ...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that the complaint should be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3
and 4 of the Convention. In their further observations they specified
that the applicant had only complained of the length of the
proceedings that took place before 30 December 2002 and that he no
longer enjoyed the victim status under the Convention. They did not
elaborate on these statements.
- Regarding
the Government’s assertion that the applicant’s complaint
was limited to the proceedings that took place before 30 December
2002, the Court firstly observes that in his application form the
applicant indicated that the last judgment taken in his case was that
of 20 August 2003. In any event, it has been a long-standing practice
of the Court that the period covered by the reasonable time guarantee
in a particular case runs until the judgment is given by the Court
(see, among others, Bordikov v. Russia, no. 921/03,
8 October 2009; Polonskiy v. Russia,
no. 30033/05, 19 March 2009).
- As
to the argument that the applicant could no longer be considered a
victim under the Convention, the Court assumes that it relates to the
fact that the applicant’s claims for compensation in his civil
case were partially granted. It rejects this argument as the
applicant’s claims in the domestic proceedings did not concern
a complaint about the length of the said proceedings.
- 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 disagreed with the complaint. They observed that the case
had been complex and that its length had been justified by a number
of the involved parties, the courts’ errors, the respondent’s
failure to appear, the number of the rounds of the proceedings and
the parties’ exercise of their procedural rights. In their
further observations they admitted that the trial court had indeed
been inactive until 30 December 2002 but insisted that after that
date the proceedings had progressed without any delays.
- The
applicant maintained his complaints.
- 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 observes that in the present case the proceedings commenced on
18 November 1998 and ended on 8 September 2004, during which period
the applicant’s claims were examined four times at two levels
of jurisdiction. The period between 20 August and 8 December 2003 has
to be deducted from the overall length as the case was not pending
before the courts. Thus, the aggregate length at issue amounts
approximately to five years and six months.
- The
Court considers that the applicant’s case had not been complex,
having involved a straightforward claim for compensation concerning
one incident.
- The
Court notes that no delays in the proceedings can be attributed to
the applicant. Turning to the conduct of the authorities, it is
struck that the applicant’s case had been left without
examination for almost three years, which had been admitted both by
the domestic authorities (see para. 11 above) and the Government
in their observations. It is also mindful of the fact that the
authorities have failed to provide any explanation for this lengthy
period of inactivity. The Court is of the opinion that even though
the subsequent proceedings had been conducted with reasonable
expedition, this alone cannot redress the excessive delay at the
beginning.
- The
foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to
conclude that the “reasonable time” requirement was
breached in the present 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 under Article 3 of the Convention that he
had been subjected to inhuman treatment upon the arrest and under
Article 5 that his arrest had been unlawful.
- The
Court observes that the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3
and 5 of the Convention are outside its jurisdiction ratione
temporis as his arrest had taken place before the entry of the
Convention into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998. These
complaints should therefore be rejected as inadmissible in accordance
with Article 35 § 3 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 150,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the claim as excessive and stated that, if the
Court were to find a violation of the Convention, such finding would
be sufficient as just satisfaction.
- Referring
to its established case-law, the Court accepts that the applicant
suffered some distress and frustration caused by the unreasonable
length of the proceedings. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court
awards EUR 2,400.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed 226 Russian roubles (RUB) (EUR 5) for the
costs and expenses incurred before the Court. In support of his claim
he submitted two post receipts.
- The
Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
- Regard
being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 5 for the proceedings before the
Court.
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 complaint concerning excessive
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;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,
the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
5 (five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant,
in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 21 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Elisabeth Steiner Deputy Registrar President
