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 GLAZKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 10929/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
October 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Glazkov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis,
President,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an
application (no. 10929/03) 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 Stanislav
Ivanovich Glazkov (“the applicant”), on 19 February 2003.
- The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr P.A. Laptev, Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On 13 December 2004
the Court decided to communicate the application. Applying Article 29
§ 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility
and merits of the application at the same time.
- On 21 September 2006 the Court dismissed the
Government's objection concerning the application of Article 29
§ 3 of the Convention.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow.
- On 11 September 1996 he was injured in a traffic
accident. He was found to have suffered light bodily injury.
- On 24 February 1997 the applicant brought proceedings,
in the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, for damages against an
individual, who had been found guilty of causing the accident and
subjected to administrative liability by a decision of the police of
26 September 1996.
- In letters dated 9 January and 2 July 1998 the
applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the lack of any
developments in his case.
- On 6 July 1999 the District Court ordered the
applicant's medical examination to be carried out by the Moscow City
Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations. The decision was not
executed.
- On 11 January 2001 the District Court again ordered
the applicant's medical examination by the Forensic Medical
Examination Bureau of the Public Health Committee of the Government
of Moscow. Pursuant to this decision, the examination was carried out
from 24 January to 9 February 2001. The experts'
report of 9 February 2001 no. 8 stated that it would be possible to
answer the questions put by the court only after the applicant's
in-patient examination with a view to determine the causation between
the accident on 11 September 1996 and his present health condition.
- On 28 June 2001 the District
Court ordered the applicant's in-patient
examination.
- On 20 January 2003 the District Court ordered the
expert assessment of the applicant's state of health and its
connection with the accident, to be carried out by the Forensic
Medical Examination Bureau of the Public Health Committee of the
Government of Moscow.
- Following the applicant's requests the District Court
demanded various medical institutions to issue the applicant's
medical records needed for the expert assessment.
- On 14 March 2003 the applicant complained to the
Moscow City Court about the delay in the proceedings in his case.
- The applicant's expert medical examination ordered by
the decision of the District Court of 20 January 2003 was carried out
by the Forensic Medical Examination Bureau of the Public Health
Committee of the Government of Moscow from 16
March 2005 to 18 March 2005. The experts' report of 18 March 2005
no. 22 confirmed that the applicant had suffered light bodily
injury in the accident on 11 September 1996 and that his
present health condition had no connection with the accident.
- On 18 April 2005 the
applicant submitted additional claims and the court adjourned the
hearing to 4 May 2005 in order to allow the defendant to get
acquainted with the new claims.
- On 4 May 2005 the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow
examined the case and delivered a judgment in which it granted the
applicant's claims in part. It ordered the defendant to pay the
applicant compensation in respect of the health damage, moral harm
and costs.
- The applicant and the defendant
appealed against the judgment.
- On 6 June 2005 the Moscow City
Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained that the length of the
proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He
also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of
an effective remedy against the excessive length of the proceedings.
The relevant parts of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 read as follows:
Article 6 § 1:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13:
“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.”
- The Government submitted that the applicant had
several times extended the scope of his claims, requested repeated
medical examinations, and altered the nature of the injuries
allegedly suffered in the traffic accident. As a result, the courts
of different levels of jurisdiction had had to order the applicant's
repeated medical examinations, request his medical records from
various medical institutions where he had undergone treatment, which
had adversely affected the length of the proceedings. On 4 May
2005 the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow had granted the
applicant's claims in part. Therefore, the applicant had fully
availed himself of the effective remedy for the legal protection of
his rights. He had failed to prove the inefficiency of the domestic
proceedings in his case. The length of the proceedings had been
explained by the complexity of the case and a large number of
comprehensive examinations. The domestic courts had taken all
legitimate measures for ensuring the applicant's access to a court
and for examining his case within the shortest possible time. The
Government concluded that the applicant was not a victim of a
violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. They also
argued, in their observations of 5 May 2005, that the application was
premature as the judgment had not yet come into effect.
- The applicant disagreed. He submitted that he could
not be blamed for enlarging the scope of his claims three times
because of the increase, with time, of his actual medical and legal
costs. His requests for the repeated medical examination had been
based on the experts' recommendation in their report of 2001. The
case had not been complex. The first expert report had indicated, in
February 2001, a need for the applicant's simple in patient
examination to enable the experts to answer the questions put by the
court. The court could have ordered the in-patient examination and
the expert assessment without delay in which case it could have
finished the proceedings in 2001.
- The Court notes that the period to be taken into
consideration began only on 5 May 1998, when the Convention came into
effect in respect of Russia. However, in assessing the reasonableness
of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of
the state of proceedings at the time. The period in question ended on
6 June 2005. It thus lasted seven years
and one month for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- As for the Government's objection of 5 May 2005 that
the application is premature, the Court notes that the proceedings in
the applicant's case ended with a decision of the Moscow
City Court of 6 June 2005. The Court considers that the
application 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
1. Article 6 § 1
- 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 notes that the present case involves
significant delays in the proceedings when they were pending before
the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, ranging from more than one
year (between 5 May 1998 and 6 July 1999, then until 11 January 2001,
and between 28 June 2001 and 20 January 2003) to more than two years
(between 20 January 2003 and March 2005). The Court finds that the
substantial part of those delays had been imputable to the
authorities. It cannot agree with the Government that the case had
been complex. The case required the expert medical assessment of the
applicant who had suffered light bodily injury in the traffic
accident. However, the delay of more than five years and eight
months, after the court had first ordered the expert opinion (on 6
July 1999) before such an assessment by a State-run expert
institution was obtained by the court (18 March 2005), is
largely attributable to the authorities.
- 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).
- 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.
2. Article 13
- The Court reiterates that
Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority
for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to
hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudła
v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §
156, ECHR 2000-XI). It notes that the Government did not indicate any
remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's
case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had
already occurred (see Kormacheva v.
Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January
2004, § 64).
- Accordingly, the Court considers
that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of
the Convention on account of the lack of a remedy under
domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling
upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time,
as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. 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 138,260 US dollars (USD) in
respect of pecuniary damage. This amount included USD 1,900 as his
medical treatment costs following the traffic accident, USD 2,870 as
costs covering postage, photocopying, transport, retraining,
liability insurance, and USD 133,490 as his lost profit in
connection with the injury suffered in the traffic accident.
- The applicant further claimed USD 100,000 in respect
of non pecuniary damage suffered in connection with, inter
alia, unjustifiably long examination of his case.
- The Government contested these claims. They submitted
that no just satisfaction should be awarded to the applicant, as
there had been no violation of his rights. In case of finding a
violation of the Convention such a finding would be adequate just
satisfaction. The Government noted that the claims were linked to the
harm caused by the defendant in the civil case and not to the length
of the proceedings. In any event, the claims were excessive and
unreasonable.
- 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 considers that the
applicant must have sustained non pecuniary damage. Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards him 3,000 euros (EUR) under that
head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant also claimed EUR 14,250 for the costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for those
incurred before the Court. He explained that this amount represents
legal costs covering the 285-hour work done by three lawyers who had
assisted him in the domestic proceedings concerning the damages
caused by the traffic accident, as well as in the proceedings before
the Court.
- The Government contested the claim. They submitted
that it was linked to the domestic proceedings in the civil case, and
that the applicant had failed to list the costs incurred in the
proceedings before the Court.
- 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 applicant,
who was not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 200 under this
head in respect of 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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian
roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
