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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> DOMBROVSKAYA AND PROKHOROV v. RUSSIA - 18849/04 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 514 (14 June 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/514.html Cite as: [2018] ECHR 514, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0614JUD001884904, CE:ECHR:2018:0614JUD001884904 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DOMBROVSKAYA AND PROKHOROV v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 18849/04 and 12715/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dombrovskaya and Prokhorov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads 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 ..."
7. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).8. In the leading case of Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government's objection pertaining to the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva, cited above, §§ 61-62; 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, dealing with the lack of remedies in Russian law, at the time, capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings) and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court dismisses the Government's objection of non-exhaustion and considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicant in application no. 18849/04 also complained under Article 13 of the lack of an effective remedy to complain about excessively lengthy court proceedings, which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). That complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Kormacheva, cited above, §§ 61-62.IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. The applicant in application no. 12715/09 also raised other complaints under the Convention.13. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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."
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-�law (see, in particular, Rubtsova v. Russia, no. 22554/04, §§ 30 and 52, 13 January 2011; Vokhmina v. Russia, no. 26384/02, §§ 26 and 37, 9 June 2005; and Plemyanova v. Russia, no. 27865/06, §§ 27 and 39, 15 October 2009), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.16. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints about the excessive length of civil proceedings and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see the appended table below) admissible and the remainder of application no. 12715/09 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no. Date of introduction | Applicant name Date of birth
| Representative name and location | Start of proceedings | End of proceedings | Total length Levels of jurisdiction | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] | |
29/04/2004 | Aleksandra Petrovna Dombrovskaya 10/04/1949 | Buksha Yelena Vladimirovna Novyy Urengoy | 17/07/1996
(the date of ratification of the Convention by Russia is 05/05/1998)
| 25/12/2003
| 5 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction, within the Court's competence ratione temporis. | Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings | 2,500 | |
31/12/2008 | Oleg Yuryevich Prokhorov 12/04/1967 |
| 22/08/2002
| 26/08/2008
| 6 year(s) and 5 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction.
|
| 2,500 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
