EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KORMACHEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 53084/99)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 29.I.2004)
In the case of Kormacheva v. Russia,
--------------------------------
<*> 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.
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
Mr E. Levits,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs E. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 January 2004,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-
mentioned date:
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 53084/99) 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 Tatiana
Akhunbekovna Kormacheva ("the applicant"), on 25 October 1999.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
by Mr P. A. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation in
the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the
Convention about the length of the civil proceedings instituted by
her and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that
respect.
4. The application was allocated to the First Section of the
Court (Rule 52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section,
the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з 1 of the
Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
5. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its
Sections (Rule 25 з 1). This case was assigned to the newly
composed First Section (Rule 52 з 1).
6. By a decision of 6 May 2003, the Court declared the
application admissible.
7. The Government, but not the applicant, filed observations on
the merits (Rule 59 з 1). The Chamber having decided, after
consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required
(Rule 59 з 3 in fine), the applicant replied in writing to
the Government's observations.
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
8. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Gus Khrustalnyi,
a town in the Vladimir Region.
9. Before her removal to Gus Khrustalnyi the applicant lived
and worked in Mys Shmidta, a town located in Chukotka, a far-
eastern territory adjacent to Alaska.
10. On 31 October 1996 the applicant filed with the
Shmidtovskiy District Court of the Chukotka Autonomous Region (the
"Shmidtovskiy Court") an action against her former employer, a
local trading office. She wanted the defendant to pay outstanding
emoluments, discharge and leave allowances, and to properly
formalise her discharge.
11. As the proceedings did not progress, in 1997 - 1999 the
applicant complained several times about the Shmidtovskiy Court to
a number of higher judicial and other authorities.
12. On 18 April 1997 the President of the Judicial
Qualifications Board, of the Chukotka Autonomous Region (the
"Regional Qualifications Board", "Board") asked the President of
the Shmidtovskiy Court to inform him why it took the court so long
to deal with the applicant's case and when the case would be
heard.
13. On 24 July 1997 the President of the Chukotka Regional
Court (the "Regional Court") asked the President of the
Shmidtovskiy Court to start the proceedings, to fix a hearing and
to inform the applicant about the date of the hearing before 20
August 1997.
14. On 1 August 1997 the President of the Civil Section of the
Regional Court forwarded the applicant's complaint to the
President of the Shmidtovskiy Court. He asked to inform him and
the applicant about the state of the proceedings before 25 August
1997.
15. On 13 March 1998 the President of the Regional Court asked
the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court to inform the applicant
before 15 April 1998 of the date when her case would be heard. He
also informed the applicant that the Regional Court could not deal
with her case itself because it was understaffed. The President
noted that his earlier requests to the Shmidtovskiy Court had
remained unanswered.
16. On 30 March 1998 the President of the Supreme Judicial
Qualifications Board asked the President of the Regional Court to
investigate the applicant's complaint and take measures, if need
be.
17. On 20 April 1998 the President of the Regional Court asked
the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court to inform him before 20
May 1998 about the state of the proceedings. He noted that the
President had not responded to the Regional Court's earlier
requests to speed up the proceedings. He also warned the President
that he would have to apply to a judicial qualifications board if
the procrastination continued.
18. On 18 May 1998 the Shmidtovskiy Court issued a letter
rogatory by which it asked a Moscow court to question the
applicant. The Moscow court could not execute the request because
the applicant had not informed the courts that her address had
changed.
19. On 7 July 1998 the President of the Regional Court informed
the applicant that her case could not be examined because the
Shmidtovskiy Court was understaffed and overloaded with work.
20. On 4 August 1998 the new President of the Regional
Qualifications Board asked the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court
to forward to the Board before 1 October 1998 copies of procedural
documents concerning the case. She noted with displeasure that the
Shmidtovskiy Court had been ignoring the applicant's earlier
complaints and the Board's requests. She also informed the
applicant that the Shmidtovskiy Court had been understaffed since
July 1997, and that it was impossible under the law to sue the
court or an individual judge for damage caused by delays in
proceedings.
21. On 13 January 1999 the President of the Regional
Qualifications Board asked the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court
to inform the Board and the applicant before 10 February 1999
about the progress of the case. She also asked the President of
the Shmidtovskiy Court to submit copies of procedural documents
which would prove that the judge responsible for the applicant's
case had prepared the case for a hearing. She also informed the
applicant that it was impossible to summon the President of the
Shmidtovskiy Court to the regional capital for explanations,
because Mys Shmidta was located too far away from the capital and
because the Board did not receive any financing for such purposes.
22. On 15 February 1999 the Deputy President of the Regional
Qualifications Board noted that the President of the Shmidtovskiy
Court had still not informed the applicant about the progress of
her case despite the earlier orders. He asked the President of the
Shmidtovskiy Court to provide this information to the applicant
immediately.
23. On 12 April 1999 the President of the Regional
Qualifications Board informed the applicant that the Board was
going to visit the Shmidtovskiy Court because there had been
numerous complaints about its inactivity. The visit was fixed for
May - June 1999, provided that the Board would have sufficient
funds for it.
24. On 26 April 1999 the President of the Supreme Judicial
Qualifications Board asked the President of the Regional Court to
verify the applicant's complaints and to pass them to the Regional
Board if they proved to be well-founded.
25. On 3 June 1999 the Shmidtovskiy District Court passed a
first judgment in the applicant's case by which her claims were
granted. The defendant appealed against this judgment.
26. On 12 July 1999 the President of the Supreme Qualifications
Board asked the President of the Regional Court to investigate the
activity of the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court before 1
September 1999.
27. On 18 August 1999 the President of the Regional
Qualifications Board informed the applicant that the Board would
investigate the activity of the President of the Shmidtovskiy
Court.
28. On 23 December 1999 the Regional Court granted the
defendant's appeal and remitted the case to the Shmidtovskiy Court
for a fresh examination.
29. On 3 April 2000 the Regional Qualifications Board
officially reprimanded the judge of the Shmidtovskiy Court
responsible for the applicant's case for breaches of procedural
rules. The Board warned the judge that she may be dismissed from
service if the breaches re-occurred.
30. On 16 March 2001 the Shmidtovskiy Court granted the
applicant's claims in part.
31. On 21 May 2001 a public prosecutor of the Shmidtovskiy
District appealed on behalf of the defendant.
32. On 11 October 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment
and ordered a re-hearing of the case.
33. Meanwhile, on 23 October 2002, the applicant claimed from
the Shmidtovskiy Court 200,000 roubles as compensation for the
delays in the proceedings. On 10 November 2002 the Shmidtovskiy
Court severed this claim from the main proceedings.
34. On 14 November 2002 the Shmidtovskiy Court granted the
applicant's main claims in part.
35. On 2 April 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against the
judgment.
36. On 15 May 2003 the Regional Court quashed the judgment in
part and passed a new judgment by which the applicant's claims
were partly satisfied.
37. On 27 June 2003 the Shmidtovskiy Court closed the
proceedings concerning the damage caused by the delays. The court
found that there existed no law specifying how such actions should
be entertained.
38. On 2 October 2003 the Regional Court quashed this decision
on the ground that the Shmidtovskiy Court should not have
considered an action directed against itself. The Regional Court
decided that it will itself determine the court to deal with the
action. These proceedings appear to be still pending.
39. During the proceedings the applicant also made a number of
complaints to the Federal Ombudsman, the Ministry of Justice, the
Government, the Parliament and the Constitutional Court. These
authorities either referred her complaints to the judicial
authorities of the Chukotka Autonomous Region or advised the
applicant to do it herself.
II. Relevant domestic law
A. Procedural time-limits
40. Under Article 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964
("CCivP") in force at the material time, an action must be
prepared for trial seven days after the action is lodged. If
litigants are not located within the same town or territory,
actions between them arising out of labour disputes must be
examined by a court of the first instance within twenty days.
41. Under Article 284-1 of the CCivP, an appeal court must
examine an appeal ten days after it is filed.
B. Judicial Qualifications Boards
42. Section 18 of the Law "On the status of judges in the
Russian Federation" of 26 June 1992, in force at the material
time, established the Supreme Judicial Qualifications Board and
qualifications boards of regional courts. The qualifications
boards had the power to select candidates for judicial posts, to
suspend or remove judges from office, to ensure judges'
inviolability and to certify judges' professional skills. The
functioning and specific powers of the qualifications boards were
to be determined in special regulations.
43. On 13 May 1993 the Parliament passed "Regulations on
Judicial Qualifications Boards". The Regulations remained in force
until 14 March 2002 when a new law on the same subject was
adopted. Under section 12 of the Regulations, a qualifications
board could:
"5. ... take a decision concerning the institution of criminal
proceedings against a judge ..., the detention of a judge or his
bringing to a court;
6. warn a judge to stop an activity incompatible with his
position; suspend or terminate a judges' powers in cases
[established by law];
7. examine [complaints] about a judge's activity or inactivity
undermining the authority of the judicial power..."
44. Pursuant to section 14 of the Regulations, qualifications
boards could receive information, necessary for their functioning,
from presidents of courts and other judges, from law-enforcement
agencies and other State bodies, from non-governmental
organisations and public officials.
45. Pursuant to section 15 of the Regulations, if an
application submitted to a qualifications board was within its
competence, the board had to deal with it within 30 days. Three
days after the board gave a decision, an extract from it had to be
sent to interested parties.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
46. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings
had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement,
provided in 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..."
47. The Government disagreed with the complaint in substance.
48. In the instant case the period to be taken into
consideration did not begin to run when the action was first
brought before the relevant court on 31 October 1996, but on 5 May
1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia.
However, in order to determine the reasonableness of the period
concerned, regard must be had to the state of the case at that
time (see, for example, Billi v. Italy, judgment of 26 February
1993, Series A No. 257-G, з 16). The proceedings came to an end on
15 May 2003 with the judgment of the Regional Court. Thus, they
lasted a total of 6 years, 6 months and 15 days of which 5 years
and 10 days fall within the Court's competence ratione temporis.
Within this period the first-instance and appeal courts examined
the case three times each.
A. Arguments of the parties
1. The Government
49. The Government submitted that the length of the proceedings
had been objectively justified for the following reasons.
First, the Shmidtovskiy Court is located in the Far East of
Russia, that is far away from Gus Khrustalnyi - the place where
the applicant lives. Therefore, it had taken the court a long time
to settle various procedural matters, for example, to obtain
evidence from the applicant, notify her of hearings or receive
feedback on letters rogatory.
Secondly, in its work the court had faced practical
difficulties. For a long period of time it had been understaffed.
Since October 1998, the court's building had been in an emergency
condition, and hearings had to be held in a meeting room of the
local administration. In the winter of 2000 the court's building
had not been heated.
Thirdly, the applicant herself had behaved in a way that
prolonged the proceedings. She had not submitted in time a copy of
her work record (трудовая книжка) which was an important piece of
evidence. She had not notified the court about changes of her
address.
2. The applicant
50. The applicant challenged the arguments of the Government.
In her opinion, the distance between the court and the place where
she lived did not justify the length of the proceedings. According
to her calculations, letters from Chukotka usually reach the
Vladimir Region in 20 days. Thus, had the court mailed all
procedural requests in time, it would have been able to give
judgment within six months. Furthermore, in 1996 - 97 the court
was fully staffed and did not suffer from natural calamities. The
letter rogatory in which the Shmidtovskiy Court asked a Moscow
court to question the applicant could not be executed because it
contained an error in her address. Lastly, the proceedings had
been unacceptably long since it was practically impossible for her
to find a new job until an entry about her dismissal from the
previous job was made in her work record.
B. The Court's assessment
51. 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).
52. The Court notes that the applicant's action concerned an
ordinary employment dispute. Hence, the case was not particularly
complex.
53. As to the applicant's conduct, the Court does not find it
established that it could justify the length of the proceedings.
54. As to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court
recalls that it is for the Contracting States to organise their
legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee to
everyone the right to a final decision within a reasonable time in
the determination of his or her civil rights and obligations (see
Frydlender, cited above, з 45). The manner in which a State
provides for mechanisms to comply with this requirement - whether
by way of increasing the numbers of judges, or by automatic time-
limits and directions, or by some other method - is for the State
to decide. If a State lets proceedings continue beyond the
"reasonable time" prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention
without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for
the resultant delay (see Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom,
Nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, з 23, 29 July 2003).
55. In their observations, the Government cited mainly
objective difficulties faced by the Shmidtovskiy District Court,
such as the lack of staff, poor technical condition of its
building and geographical remoteness. The Court considers that
these difficulties do not excuse the State from ensuring that the
proceedings were dealt with within a reasonable time.
56. The Court recalls further that employment disputes by their
nature call for expeditious decision (see, mutatis mutandis,
Obermeier v. Austria, judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A No. 179,
з 72). The applicant's case concerned, inter alia, the
formalisation of her dismissal without which she was seriously
disadvantaged in finding a new employment. The Court finds that
the applicant had an important personal interest in securing a
judicial decision on that matter promptly.
57. Having regard to this and to the fact that the case was
pending for more than five years the Court finds that the
foregoing considerations are sufficient to conclude that the
applicant's case was not heard within a reasonable time. There has
accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
58. The applicant complained also that in Russia there was no
effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings. She
relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the]
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a
national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
59. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that
when the applicant had complained to higher judicial authorities,
the authorities urged the Shmidtovskiy Court to speed up the
proceedings.
60. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an
effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach
of the requirement under Article 6 з 1 to hear a case within a
reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, з 156,
ECHR 2000-XI).
61. The Court notes that the Government did not, however,
indicate whether and, if so, how the applicant could obtain relief
- either preventive or compensatory - by having recourse to the
higher judicial and other authorities. It was not suggested that
this remedy could have expedited the determination of the
applicant's case or provided her with adequate redress for delays
that had already occurred. 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 Kudla, cited above, з 159).
62. It is true that the applicant's numerous complaints to the
judicial authorities ultimately culminated in the decision of the
Regional Qualifications Board of 3 April 2000 by which the judge
responsible for her case was officially reprimanded. But the Court
does not consider that this specific procedure was an effective
remedy against the length of the proceedings in terms of Article
13. First, the applicant's complaint to the Board was in fact no
more than information submitted to this supervisory organ with the
suggestion to make use of its powers if it saw fit to do so. These
powers can be exercised in the same way without the initiative
coming from the applicant. If such a complaint is made, the Board
is only obliged to take up the matter with the judge against whom
the complaint is directed if it considers that the complaint is
not manifestly ill-founded. If proceedings are instituted, they
concern the Board and the judge in question, whereas the applicant
will not be a party in these proceedings. The effect of any
decision taken will concern the personal position of the
responsible judge, but there will not be any direct and immediate
consequence for the proceedings which have given rise to the
complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Karrer, Fuchs and Kodrnja v.
Austria, No. 7464/76, Commission decision of 5 December 1978,
Decisions and Reports (DR) 14, p. 51).
63. Lastly, the Court does not have before it any indication
that in the proceedings which the applicant brought against the
Shmidtovskiy Court on 23 October 2003 she was able to obtain
substantive relief.
64. Accordingly, the Court holds that in the present case there
has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the
applicant had no domestic remedy whereby she could enforce her
right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" as guaranteed by
Article 6 з 1 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
65. 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
66. The applicant claimed pecuniary damage under a number of
heads, including the emoluments allegedly underpaid at her
dismissal, approximately amounting to 2,058,326.10 roubles (RUR).
She asked the Court to recognise the date of the final judgment as
the date of her dismissal from work.
67. The Government made no specific comment on the sums claimed
but noted that the Court should limit its award, if any, to what
is reasonable.
68. The Court does not discern any causal link between the
violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. It therefore
rejects this claim.
69. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-
pecuniary damage. She claimed that if the Shmidtovskiy District
Court had given a judgment which was fair and timely, she would
not have had to live years in misery.
70. The Government submitted that if the Court were to find a
violation of the Convention, this would in itself be a sufficient
just satisfaction.
71. The Court finds in the present case that it is reasonable
to assume 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 3,000 under
this head.
B. Costs and expenses
72. The applicant also claimed RUR 1,965 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and RUR 7,461 for
those incurred before the Court.
73. The Government made no specific comment in this regard.
74. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled
to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it
has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the
above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum
of EUR 200 covering costs under all heads.
C. Default interest
75. 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
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
according to Article 44 з 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 200 (two hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 January 2004,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Deputy Registrar
|
