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 SOKOREV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 33896/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 June 2009
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 Sokorev v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 May 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 33896/04) 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 Viktorovich
Sokorev (“the applicant”), on 12 August 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the then Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
12 October 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the village of Bolshaya
Rechka, Irkutsk Region.
A. Events prior to 5 May 1998
- As
an employee of a State-owned company, in 1987 the applicant and his
family were granted a room in a shared flat. After his dismissal in
1992, the company sought his eviction. In 1993 the company was
reincorporated as a limited liability company.
- On
1 October 1993 the applicant brought proceedings against the company
asserting his right to live in the room. According to the Government,
the applicant's claim was received by the Sverdlovskiy District Court
of Irkutsk on 12 November 1993. The respondent sought the applicant's
eviction.
- By
a judgment of 1 February 1994, the District Court rejected the
applicant's claim and ordered his eviction. On 13 April 1994 the
Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant obtained a
stay of execution of the eviction order. On 20 June 1994 the
Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above judgments by way of
supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh examination.
- Thereafter
the District Court examined the case twice and rendered two
judgments. Each time the Regional Court quashed the judgments and
remitted the case for fresh examination. It appears that in the
meantime the applicant resettled and the respondent company withdrew
their claim for eviction.
- On
5 May 1998 the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia.
B. Events after 5 May 1998
- In
yet another round of the resumed proceedings, the applicant confined
his claim to asking the court to require the respondent to provide
him with housing. By a judgment of 23 November 1998, the
District Court granted this claim and ordered the company to provide
the applicant with a flat. On 12 March 1999 the Regional Court upheld
the judgment. The respondent sought supervisory review. On 12 April
1999 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above judgments
by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for
re-examination.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the applicant amended his claim and sought
to substitute the respondent by the new company. On 2 July
1999 the District Court required the company to provide the applicant
with housing. On 1 December 1999 the Regional Court quashed the
judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
- On
24 April 2000 the District Court issued a new judgment in the
applicant's favour. On 30 June 2000 the Regional Court set aside this
judgment on appeal and ordered a new examination of the case. The
district judge was on annual leave from 26 July to 5 September 2000.
One hearing was adjourned due to the applicant; two hearings were
adjourned at the respondent's request. On 20 February 2001 the
District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. On 23 May 2001
the Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant sought
supervisory review. On 19 August 2002 the Presidium of the Regional
Court quashed the above judgments and remitted the case for fresh
examination.
- Between
October 2002 and January 2004 a number of hearings were scheduled and
adjourned mostly because the respondent failed to attend or sought
adjournments. Several hearings were adjourned because of the
applicant. One hearing was adjourned in view of the judge's illness.
By a judgment of 12 February 2004, the District Court rejected the
applicant's claim. On 21 April 2004 the Regional Court upheld the
judgment.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in his civil
case had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement under
Article 6 of the Convention, which reads in the relevant part 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
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
Government submitted that the proceedings were complex. The applicant
had varied his claim a number of times and the respondent had lodged
counterclaims. Certain hearings were adjourned because the applicant
or his representative failed to attend. Significant delays were
caused by the respondents, private companies, for whose actions or
omissions the State could not be held liable. The pace of the
proceedings after 5 May 1998 was acceptable.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court observes that the proceedings started in 1993 and ended on 21
April 2004. The Court has jurisdiction to examine the complaint in so
far as it concerns the proceedings after 5 May 1998, when the
Convention entered into force in respect of Russia, with due regard
to the state of proceedings on that date. Furthermore, the Court
considers that the periods from 12 March to 12 April 1999, and from
23 May 2001 to 19 August 2002 should not be taken into
consideration. Thus, the period to be taken into account amounts to
approximately four years and eight months within the Court's
competence ratione temporis at two levels of jurisdiction.
- 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 that of the relevant authorities,
and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among
other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court considers that the case was not particularly complex. Nor did
the applicant's decisions to amend his claim affect that matter.
- As to the conduct of the applicant, no significant
delays can be attributed to him. The Court does not lose sight
of the fact that the procedure for reopening proceedings in 2001 was
set in motion by the applicant. However, there is no indication that
the applicant went beyond merely taking full advantage of the
resources afforded by national law (see Yağcı and Sargın
v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A no. 319 A).
- As
to the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that the length of
the proceedings was due to the fact that the case was re-examined
several times, including following reopening by way of a supervisory
review. Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the
juridical quality of the domestic courts' decisions, it considers
that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is frequently
ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the
repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings may disclose
a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska
v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003;
Matica v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November
2006; Falimonov v. Russia, no. 11549/02, § 58, 25
March 2008; and Maruseva v. Russia, no. 28602/02, § 32,
29 May 2008). It is incumbent on respondent States to organise their
legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet the
requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, including the obligation
to hear cases within a reasonable time (see Sürmeli v.
Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 129, 8 June 2006).
- Furthermore, the Court notes that the conduct of the
respondent was one of the reasons for the prolongation of the
proceedings. In the Court's opinion, it was incumbent on the court
dealing with the case to discipline the defaulting party in order to
ensure that the proceedings were conducted at an acceptable pace (see
Kuśmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September
2004, and Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, § 34, 8 March
2007).
- Lastly,
the Court notes that the civil dispute concerned the applicant's and
his family's housing rights. Thus, it is accepted that the case
concerned a matter requiring special diligence on the part of the
national authorities.
- Making
an overall assessment and having regard to its case-law on the
matter, the Court concludes that the “reasonable time”
requirement was not met in the present case. There has accordingly
been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the supervisory review ruling of 12 April
1999 and the findings made by the national courts at various stages
of the proceedings.
- The
Court has examined those complaints, as submitted by the applicant.
However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in
so far as these complaints fall 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 or its Protocols. It
follows that this part of the application must be rejected 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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the
prescribed time-limit. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is
no call to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the length of
proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there is no call to make an award in
respect of just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
