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]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF SOBOLEV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 55326/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22
September 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sobolev v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger,
judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 August 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 55326/07) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Ukrainian national, Mr Dmytro Vitaliyovych Sobolev (“the
applicant”), on 19 November 2007.
2. The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
2 September 2010 the
President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance
with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of
three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1975 and lives in
Chernigiv.
- On
29 May 1998 he lodged a claim with the Desnyanskyy District Court of
Chernigiv (“the District Court”) against the Ministry of
the Interior seeking damages for injuries caused to him by its
employee Mr O.
6. From
18 December 1998 to 22 July 1999 and from 23 September 1999 to 1
November 1999 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of
criminal proceedings against Mr O.
- Following
two remittals of the case for fresh examination, on 19 May 2004 the
District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim and awarded
him certain amounts in damages.
- On
16 September 2004 and 30 April 2007 respectively the Chernigiv
Regional Court of Appeal and the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal
(the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld the above
judgment. The decision of 30 April 2007 was served on the applicant
on 14 August 2007.
- According
to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant
three times amended his claim. The courts
adjourned fifteen hearings following the applicant’s requests
or due to his and other parties’ failure to attend them. The
applicant disagreed stating that he had not been informed of the
hearings which he had not attended. Some twenty two hearings were
further adjourned following other parties’ requests, their
failure to appear or for unspecified reasons.
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
Government contested that argument stating that the case had been
complex and that the applicant had contributed
to the length of the proceedings.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 29 May 1998 and ended
on 14 August 2007, when a copy of the final decision was served on
the applicant (see Gitskaylo
v. Ukraine, no. 17026/05, § 34,
14 February 2008). From 18 December 1998 to 22 July 1999 and
from 23 September 1999 to 1 November 1999 the proceedings were
formally suspended (see paragraph 6 above). The proceedings thus
lasted for about eight and a half years before three 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
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).
15. The
Court considers that the complexity of the case and the conduct of
the applicant, who somewhat contributed to the length of the
proceedings (see paragraph 9 above), cannot explain their overall
length. On the other hand, the Court finds that the protraction of
the proceedings was mainly caused by two remittals of the case for
fresh examination (see paragraph 7 above), by the
repeated adjournments of the hearings (see paragraph 9 above)
and by the lengthy period of consideration of the case by the court
of cassation (see paragraph 8 above). It concludes, therefore, that
the main responsibility for the lengthy duration of the proceedings
rests with the State.
- The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one
in the present case (see Frydlender,
cited above; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine,
no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Moroz
and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02,
§ 62, 21 December 2006).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
- The applicant also complained
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfavourable
outcome of the proceedings and that his case had been examined by a
court of cassation other than the Supreme Court.
- Having carefully examined the applicant’s
submissions 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 rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
- It follows that this part of the application must be
declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 910,388
and 4,000,000
United States dollars (USD) respectively for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- 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, it awards the applicant EUR
1,600 in respect of non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed USD 10,000
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts. He
provided no supporting documents in this respect.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its
case-law, the Court rejects this claim.
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 under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention concerning the 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 EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros), plus
any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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 22 September 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy
Registrar President
