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 MESHCHERYAKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 24564/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 February
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Meshcheryakov v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 24564/04) 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, Mr Vladimir Ivanovich
Meshcheryakov (“the applicant”), on 2 June 2004.
- 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
28 September 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.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Tula.
- On
1 November 2000 the applicant brought civil proceedings claiming
damages from the regional police department.
- The
hearings scheduled at the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula (“the
District Court”) for 17 January and 15 March 2001 did not take
place as the judge was involved in different proceedings. The
applicant also chose to amend his claims which required their
communication to the respondent.
- The
hearing of 21 June 2001 was adjourned at the respondent’s
request to collect certain evidence.
- By
judgment of 28 June 2001, the District Court awarded the applicant
249,292 Russian roubles (RUR) against the police department. The
respondent appealed.
- On
13 November 2001 the Tula Regional Court (“the Regional Court”)
decided to postpone examination of the appeal pending the outcome of
an inquiry initiated by the Supreme Court of Russia with the
Constitutional Court of Russia concerning compliance of certain legal
provisions with the Constitution.
- Following
the adoption of a judgment by the Constitutional Court on 19 June
2002, on 13 August 2002 the Regional Court resumed the appeal
proceedings.
- The
appeal hearing of 19 September 2002 did not take place due to the
illness of the respondent’s representative.
- On
17 October 2002 the Regional Court examined the appeal, set the
judgment aside and ordered re-examination of the case.
- At
the hearings of 27 February and 15 April 2003 the applicant amended
his claims. Both hearings were adjourned to enable the respondent to
study the amendments.
- The
hearings of 26 May and 28 August 2003 did not take place due to the
respondent’s representative’s involvement in different
proceedings and the judge’s illness, respectively.
- By
judgment of 22 September 2003 the District Court awarded the
applicant RUR 473,913.33 in respect of unpaid disability
allowance for the period from June 1998 to October 2003. The police
department was also ordered to pay RUR 14,961.91 per month
starting from October 2003 and to adjust that sum on a monthly basis
in accordance with the statutory level of minimum wages and the cost
of living in the Tula Region.
- Neither
of the parties challenged the judgment, which became final on 3
October 2003. The enforcement proceedings were opened.
- On
5 December 2003 the police department asked the District Court to fix
a new time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of
22 September 2003.
- On
15 December 2003 the District Court rejected their request. The
police department appealed, and the applicant requested that the
appeal hearing be postponed due to his illness. Two months later the
Regional Court quashed the impugned decision and remitted the matter
to the first instance.
- On
9 March 2004 the District Court granted the request for a new
time-limit. The applicant appealed and asked to postpone the appeal
hearing due to his counsel’s unavailability. On 27 April 2004
the Regional Court upheld the decision.
- By
an interim decision of 18 May 2004, the District Court stayed
enforcement of the judgment of 22 September 2003. After lodging an
appeal, the applicant again asked to postpone the appeal hearing due
to his counsel’s unavailability.
- On
6 July 2004 the Regional Court set aside the judgment of 22 September
2003 and the decision to stay the enforcement proceedings. A new
hearing was required.
- On
1 October 2004 the applicant amended his claims.
- The
hearing of 7 October 2004 did not take place due to the judge’s
illness.
- In
the meantime the applicant lodged an application for supervisory
review of the appeal decision of 6 July 2004. On 11 November 2004 the
supervisory instance called up his case and dismissed his application
on 5 March 2005.
- At
the hearings of 26 April and 23 May 2005 the applicant again modified
his claims. The respondent requested that the latter hearing be
adjourned to verify some evidence. The next hearing of 20 June 2005
had also to be adjourned due to another amendment of his claims by
the applicant.
- The
respondent’s representative did not appear at the hearings
scheduled for 6 and 7 July 2005 due to his involvement in different
proceedings.
- On
11 July 2005 the applicant again changed his claims, following which
the hearing was adjourned to collect certain evidence.
- On
8 September 2005 the applicant amended his claims.
- The
hearings of 13 September and 12 October 2005 did not take place as
the judge was first ill and then involved in different proceedings.
- On
24 October and 16 November 2005 the court granted the parties’
motions for obtaining of certain evidence and sent relevant
inquiries.
- At
the next hearing that took place on 8 February 2006 the applicant
again modified his claims.
- On
3 March 2006 the District Court awarded the applicant a lump sum of
RUR 381,251.97 and ordered the police department to pay him
RUR 14,358.03 per month starting from 1 March 2006. The judgment
was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 29 June 2006 and
enforced on 4 May 2007.
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 applicant had failed to exhaust the
available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint. In
particular, they pointed out that it had been open to him to complain
to the Judicial Qualifications Board of the Tula Region, challenge
the trial court’s decisions for adjournment or claim
compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
- The
applicant countered alleging that he had in fact unsuccessfully
complained to the Judicial Qualifications Board and challenged the
adjournment decisions.
- The
Court reiterates that according to its previous findings, at the time
when the applicant brought his application to Strasbourg there was no
effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for
the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other
authorities, Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, §
61-62, 29 January 2004; Kuzin
v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§
42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v.
Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15
June 2006; Markova v. Russia,
no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev
and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06,
§ 48, 25 June 2009).
- It
notes that in the present case the Government did not provide any new
argument as to whether and how the applicant could obtain effective
relief by having recourse to the suggested measures. It was not
suggested that these remedies could have expedited the determination
of the applicant’s case or provided him with adequate redress
of the delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva,
cited above, § 61). Nor did the Government supply any
example from domestic practice showing that, by using the means in
question, it was possible for the applicant to obtain such a relief
(see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §
159, ECHR 2000 XI).
- Accordingly,
the Court rejects the Government’s argument concerning a
failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It notes that this complaint is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government submitted that the applicant’s case had been complex
and that he had borne primary responsibility for its length by
frequently changing his claims, lodging motions for obtainment of
evidence and requesting adjournments.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court observes that the proceedings in the applicant’s case
lasted from 1 November 2000 to 29 June 2006. The interval between
11 November 2004 and 5 March 2005 should not be taken into
account as during this period the case was examined by the
supervisory instance. The aggregate length of the proceedings thus
amounts approximately to five years and four months, during which
period the applicant’s claims were examined three times at two
levels of jurisdiction. The Court finds it possible to include in
this period the interval between September and December 2003 when the
respondent’s appeal of the judgment had not yet been lodged and
the case was not pending before the courts, considering that during
this time it was incumbent on the State to enforce the judgment in
the applicant’s favour (see Sokolov v. Russia, no.
3734/02, § 32, 22 September 2005).
- 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 considers that even though the applicant’s claims were
not characterised by particular complexity, he changed and
supplemented them at least on ten occasions throughout the
proceedings. It is of the opinion that the task of the courts was
rendered more difficult by these factors (see Antonov v. Russia,
no. 38020/03, 3 November 2005). The Court further observes that twice
the applicant motioned for obtainment of certain evidence which
further delayed the proceedings, and on three occasions he asked to
postpone an appeal hearing due to his illness or his counsel’s
unavailability.
- It
takes cognisance of the suspension of the appeal proceedings for nine
months pending outcome of an inquiry with the Constitutional Court of
Russia (see paragraph 9 above) but considers that this measure was
undertaken in the interests of a fair resolution of the applicant’s
case. The Court observes that, apart from a few occasions when the
judge sitting in the case was ill or involved in different
proceedings, the authorities did not contribute to their length. The
courts did not idle and handled the case with reasonable expedition.
- Regard
being had to the overall length of the proceedings and the levels of
jurisdiction involved, as well as the applicant’s own
responsibility for the delays, the Court concludes that the
“reasonable time” requirement was not breached in the
present case.
- There
has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained about the outcome of the second round of
the proceedings that ended in an appeal decision of 6 July 2004.
- The
Court recalls that it is not its task to act by calling into question
the outcome of the domestic proceedings. The domestic courts are best
placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in the
case and for interpreting and applying rules of substantive and
procedural law (see Pekinel v. Turkey, no. 9939/02, § 53,
18 March 2008). Therefore, this complaint should be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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 no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 February 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Nina Vajić Deputy Registrar President
