EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF VOKHMINA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 26384/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 9.VI.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set
out in Article 44 з 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Vokhmina v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs N. {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr D. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 26384/02) 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 Raisa
Yevdokimovna Vokhmina ("the applicant"), on 30 May 2002.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 30 October 2003 the Court decided to communicate the
complaint concerning the length of proceedings to the Government.
Under the provisions of Article 29 з 3 of the Convention, it
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time
as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow.
5. On 26 March 1999 she bought a plot of land and a summer
house in Michurinsk.
6. On 13 January 2000 a dealer who had assisted her in buying
the property instituted proceedings against her, claiming recovery
of a debt totalling 1,000 US dollars.
7. On 24 April 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court of the Tambov
Region dismissed the claim.
8. On 29 May 2000 the Tambov Regional Court quashed the
judgment and remitted the case to the Michurinskiy Town Court for
a fresh examination.
9. On 7 September 2000 the applicant filed an application for
the case to be transferred to the Perovo District Court of Moscow.
10. On 15 September 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court granted
the application and transferred the case. On 20 September 2000 the
case file was sent to the Perovo District Court. On 15 November
2000 the plaintiff filed a complaint against the transfer of the
case.
11. On 14 December 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court requested
the Perovo District Court to confirm receipt of the case file. On
25 December 2000 and 15 February 2001 the Michurinskiy Town Court
requested the Perovo District Court to send the case file back so
that the plaintiff's complaint could be examined. On 21 February
2001 the Perovo District Court replied that it could not return
the case file because the case in question had not been registered
with it in the period 2000 - 2001. On 2 April 2001 the
Michurinskiy Town Court again repeated the request. On 7 May 2001
the Perovo District Court returned the case file to the
Michurinskiy Town Court.
12. On 12 July 2001, following an application for supervisory
review lodged by a member of the Presidium, the Presidium of the
Tambov Regional Court quashed the Michurinskiy Town Court's ruling
of 15 September 2000 concerning transfer of the case to the Perovo
District Court of Moscow on the ground, inter alia, that the
plaintiff had not been duly notified of the hearing.
13. According to the Government, two hearings were fixed by the
Michurinskiy Town Court for 28 August and 13 September 2001, but
the applicant did not appear at either hearing. It is not clear
whether these were hearings on the merits or whether the court was
merely dealing with certain procedural issues.
14. On 28 January 2002, following another application for
supervisory review lodged by the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme
Court of Russia, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the ruling of
12 July 2001 on the grounds that the applicant had not been duly
notified of the hearing, and remitted the case to the Tambov
Regional Court for a fresh examination.
15. On 21 March 2002 the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court
again quashed the ruling of the Michurinskiy Town Court of 15
September 2000.
16. On 25 April 2002 the applicant filed an application with
the Michurinskiy Town Court, requesting that the case be
transferred to the Perovo District Court.
17. In September 2002 the applicant lodged an application with
the Chairman of the Supreme Court requesting supervisory review of
the ruling of 21 March 2002. On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court
returned the application without consideration, as a number of
procedural requirements had not been fulfilled.
18. Two hearings on the merits were fixed by the Michurinskiy
Town Court for 15 and 22 August 2003. The parties did not appear
at either of those hearings. On the latter date the court decided
to leave the claim without consideration. That ruling was not
appealed against.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
19. The applicant complained that the proceedings had been
unreasonably long. The Court will examine the applicant's
complaint under Article 6 з 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 established by law..."
20. The period to be taken into consideration began on 13
January 2000 and ended on 22 August 2003. It thus lasted 3 years,
7 months and 9 days.
A. Admissibility
21. The Government did not make any submissions on this point.
22. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention. No
other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
23. The Government did not make any submissions on this point.
24. The applicant submitted that the case had not been
particularly complex and that the proceedings had therefore been
unreasonably long.
25. 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 criteria established by its
case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of
the applicant and of 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, з 43, ECHR
2000-VII).
(a) Complexity of the case
26. The Court considers that the case was not particularly
difficult to determine. Consequently, it takes the view that an
overall period of 3 years, 7 months and 9 days could not, in
itself, be deemed to satisfy the "reasonable time" requirement in
Article 6 з 1 of the Convention.
(b) Conduct of the applicant
27. The Court notes that the Government failed to make any
submissions concerning the merits of the complaint. In the
statement of facts submitted by the Government it is indicated
that the applicant failed to appear at the hearings of 28 August
and 13 September 2001 and at the hearings held on 15 and 22 August
2003. This is not contested by the applicant. However, as regards
the hearings of 28 August and 13 September 2001, there is no
evidence that hearings on the merits were scheduled for these
dates. In any event, there is no indication that they were
adjourned on account of the applicant's failure to appear, or that
such failure otherwise contributed to the length of the
proceedings. As regards the hearing of 15 August 2003, when both
parties were absent, although that hearing appears to have been
scheduled precisely to examine the merits of the case, there is
likewise no evidence that the hearing was adjourned on account of
the applicant's failure to attend it. On 22 August 2003 the
proceedings were closed. Accordingly, the Court is unable to find
that the applicant was responsible for any delays in the
proceedings.
(c) Conduct of the domestic authorities
28. The Court observes that for 3 years, 2 months and 24 days,
i.e. between 29 May 2000 and 22 August 2003, no examination took
place of the merits of the case. The domestic courts took more
than a year and a half to rule on the applicant's application to
transfer the case from one court to another. After that
application had been first granted by a ruling of 15 September
2000, it was quashed under supervisory review almost a year later,
on 12 July 2001, on account of the court's failure to notify the
plaintiff of the hearing in the proceedings for the transfer. This
ruling was also quashed under supervisory review six months later
on account of the court's failure to notify the applicant of the
hearing of 12 July 2001. As a result of the fresh examination, the
ruling of 15 September 2000 was again quashed on 21 March 2002.
The Court further notes that there was a period of over eight
months' inactivity by the courts, between 20 September 2000 and 28
May 2001, when they were unable to account for the case file's
location.
29. It follows that the above delay was caused by repeated
procedural omissions by the domestic courts.
(d) Conclusion
30. In the absence of any explanation for the length of the
proceedings in the present case, the Court finds that it did not
satisfy the "reasonable time" requirement. Accordingly, there has
been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
A. Admissibility
31. The applicant complained that, under domestic law, the case
should have been examined by the Perovo District Court of Moscow,
since she was resident in the territory under that court's
jurisdiction. The Court will examine this complaint under Article
6 з 1 of the Convention.
32. The Court recalls that Article 6 guarantees a right to a
fair hearing by a tribunal established by law. The Convention does
not guarantee, as such, a right to have a case examined by a
particular court. The Court notes that the Michurinskiy Town Court
of the Tambov Region accepted the claim against the applicant for
examination in accordance with domestic jurisdictional rules.
There is no evidence that the tribunal was not "established by
law" or that the proceedings were not "fair" within the meaning of
Article 6.
33. It follows that this part of the application must be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
зз 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
34. 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
35. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for
non-pecuniary damage. She claimed that she was a pensioner with a
monthly income of EUR 50 and that the unreasonable length of the
proceedings had adversely affected her.
36. The Government considered this claim to be excessive and
unreasonable.
37. Having regard to the nature of the breach in this case and
the outcome of the domestic proceedings, making its assessment on
an equitable basis, the Court finds that the finding of a
violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for
the non-pecuniary damage, if any, sustained by the applicant.
B. Costs and expenses
38. The applicant did not make any claims in respect of the
costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before
the Court.
39. Accordingly, the Court made no award under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Declares unanimously the complaint concerning the length of
the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds unanimously that the finding of a violation
constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-
pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
4. Dismisses unanimously the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
In accordance with Article 45 з 2 of the Convention and Rule 74
з 2 of the Rules of Court, the dissenting opinion of Mr Rozakis,
Mrs {Vajic} and Mrs Botoucharova is annexed to this judgment.
C.L.R.
S.N.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES ROZAKIS,
{VAJIC} AND BOTOUCHAROVA
We have voted against the finding of a violation in the present
case in spite of the procedural imbroglio that led to delays in
the proceedings. The reasons for which we depart from the position
of the majority are the following:
a) Although admittedly a number of delays detected in the
domestic proceedings were attributable to the national
authorities, still the applicant contributed to some of them, in
particular by not appearing at several hearings.
b) The dispute before the domestic tribunals arose as a result
of a request made by a dealer who had assisted the applicant in
buying a piece of property claiming the recovery from the
applicant of a debt amounting to USD 1,000. In view of the nature
of the subject-matter of these proceedings we believe that the
applicant has not suffered any particular stress due to their
protracted character.
Taking all these elements together, as well as the outcome of
the proceedings, we cannot reach the conclusion that there has
been a violation of the Convention in the present case.
|
