[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SALAMATINA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 38015/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1
March 2007
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 Salamatina v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 February 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 38015/03) 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, Ms Nelli
Ivanovna Salamatina (“the applicant”), on 11 November
2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
11 October 2005 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow. In January
1995 she was injured in a traffic accident.
- On
3 July 1998 the applicant lodged an action before the Koptevskiy
District Court of Moscow seeking compensation for damage from the
owner of the car, a private company.
- On
8 July 1998 the Koptevskiy District Court adjourned the examination
of the action until 20 July 1998 to allow the applicant to indicate
possible evidence and clarify her claims. After she had duly
fulfilled the instructions, on 20 July 1998 the Koptevskiy District
Court asked the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow and certain
hospitals to submit documents related to the traffic accident and the
state of the applicant's health. The documents were received on
3 August 1998. In November 1998, following unsuccessful attempts
to summons the respondent, the Koptevskiy District Court inquired the
tax authorities about the company's legal address.
- In
April 1999 the applicant successfully asked for adjournment of the
proceedings until May 1999 because she was undergoing treatment in a
hospital. On 24 September 1999 she amended her claims.
- On
28 September 1999 the Koptevskiy District Court listed a preparatory
hearing for 7 October 1999. That hearing was adjourned until 14
October 1999 because the respondent defaulted. At the following
hearing of 9 November 1999 the District Court, upon the
applicant's request, charged the respondent's property and inquired
the tax authorities about the respondent's bank accounts. On 22
November 1999, in response to the applicant's request, the Koptevskiy
District Court charged the respondent's bank accounts.
- On
8, 10 and 15 December 1999 the applicant and her representative
successfully asked the District Court to obtain additional evidence
and invite a prosecutor to the proceedings. On 15 December 1999
the District Court also lifted the charging order in respect of
certain property of the respondent. The decision was upheld on appeal
on 10 January 2000.
- The
Koptevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 19 January 2000. That
hearing was adjourned because the applicant did not attend. At the
following hearing of 22 February 2000 the applicant challenged the
composition of the bench and petitioned the District Court for
medical and technical expert opinions. The District Court adjourned
the examination of the case until 23 March 2000 to allow the
applicant to prepare questions to experts.
- Of the three hearings fixed between 23 March and 14
June 2000 two were adjourned because the judge was ill or
participated in unrelated proceedings.
- On
14 June 2000 the applicant's representative successfully asked the
District Court to stay the proceedings until 1 September 2000 because
he could not attend hearings.
- The hearing fixed for 1 September 2000 was adjourned
because the judge was ill. At the following hearing of 19 September
2000 the applicant successfully asked the District Court to stay the
proceedings until 24 October 2000 to allow her to amend the
claims. However, she defaulted at the hearing of 24 October 2000 and
the District Court again stayed the proceedings until 5 December
2000.
- At the hearing of 5 December 2000 the applicant
submitted the amended statement of claim and asked the court to
perform a medical technical examination. The Koptevskiy District
Court accepted the applicant's request, ordered the expert
examination and appointed an expert bureau to perform it. The
examination was to be performed by the Russian Centre of Forensic
Medical Examinations. On 21 May 2001 the expert bureau returned the
case-file to the District Court because it had no competence to
perform such an examination.
- On
27 August 2001 the Koptevskiy District Court held that the medical
examination should be performed by another expert bureau and stayed
the proceedings. On 29 November 2001 the District Court received an
expert report with answers to a part of the questions posed by the
parties. The expert opinion responding to the parties' remaining
questions was received in April 2002.
- On 14 May 2002 the Koptevskiy District Court resumed
the proceedings and listed a hearing for 4 June 2002. At the hearing
on 4 June 2002 the applicant successfully asked the District Court to
stay the proceedings until July 2002 because she wanted to study the
case-file.
- On 3 July 2002 the Koptevskiy District Court dismissed
the applicant's request for another expert examination. On the same
day the District Court held in the applicant's favour and awarded her
RUR 17,229.94 as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage.
- A
week later the applicant initiated the appeal proceedings and
submitted a short version of her statement of appeal. On 30 July 2002
she lodged the full version of the statement and also asked to
restore the time-limit for lodging amendments to the District Court's
records.
- On 12 May 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the
judgment of 3 July 2002.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 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...”
- The
period under consideration began on 3 July 1998 when the Koptevskiy
District Court of Moscow received the applicant's statement of claim.
The period in question came to an end on 12 May 2003 when the final
judgment was taken. Therefore, the proceedings lasted approximately
four years and ten months before the courts of two levels of
jurisdiction.
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 argued that the applicant had caused delays in the
proceedings by amending her claims, petitioning for expert studies,
requesting adjournment of the proceedings for various reasons and
defaulting at several hearings. The case had been complex as it had
required taking of expert evidence. The task of the domestic courts
had been made even more difficult because the applicant had lodged
her action more than three years after the traffic accident. The
District Court had been very active in seeking and obtaining the
necessary evidence, issuing interim decisions and accepting the
applicant's numerous requests.
- The
applicant claimed that the case had not been particularly complex.
The domestic authorities had been responsible for delays. The
District Court had not taken any actions between 3 July 1998 and
9 November 1999. It had not acted diligently after 23 March
2000. A delay from 5 December 2000 to 21 May 2001 was caused by the
District Court's failure to choose the competent expert bureau.
- 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 observes that the proceedings at issue were complex, as they
required expert opinions and studying of the applicant's medical
records. The applicant amended her claims on several occasions. The
task of the District Court was rendered more difficult by these
factors. However, the Court cannot accept that the complexity of the
case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of
the proceedings. Moreover, the Court considers that special diligence
is necessary in disputes concerning compensation for damage caused to
the person's health.
- Insofar
as the behaviour of the applicant is concerned, the Court notes the
Government's argument that the applicant attributed to the delay in
the proceedings by defaulting and petitioning for adjournment of
hearings. The aggregated delay incurred therefrom amounted to
approximately ten months.
- As
regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court considers that the
overall period less the period attributable to the applicant's
conduct leaves the authorities accountable for approximately four
years. The Court observes the substantial periods of inactivity for
which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation,
are attributable to the domestic courts. The Court notes a delay of
approximately seventeen months caused by the stay in the proceedings
awaiting the expert opinion (see paragraphs 14 and 16 above). The
Court is not called upon to determine the reasons for the delay in
preparation of the expert report (difficulties in identifying the
competent expert bureau, etc.), because Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their
judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the
obligation to decide cases within a reasonable time (see, among other
authorities, Löffler v. Austria, no. 30546/96, § 57,
3 October 2000). The Court observes that the principle responsibility
for a delay caused by the expert examinations rests ultimately with
the State (see Capuano v. Italy, judgment of 25 June 1987,
Series A no. 119, § 32). The Court further notes that the
case was pending for approximately eleven months before the Moscow
City Court (see paragraphs 17 and 19 above). It appears that during
that period the City Court only held one hearing, on 12 May 2003,
when it took the final judgment. The Court also observes that certain
delays attributable to the domestic authorities occurred in 1998 and
1999.
- Finally,
the Court reiterates that the dispute in the present case concerned
compensation for health damage. The Court is of the opinion that the
nature of the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of
the domestic courts (see Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04,
§ 40, 5 October 2006).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it and taking into account
what was at stake for the applicant, 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that
the domestic courts failed to give a correct interpretation of the
domestic law and erroneously assessed the facts.
- The
Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its
duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the
Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its
function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a
national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights
and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Čekić
and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no.
15085/02, 9 October 2003). Moreover, while Article 6 of the
Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay
down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should
be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by
national law and the national courts (see García
Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR
1999 I).
- Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that there is
nothing to indicate that the domestic courts' evaluation of the facts
and evidence presented in the applicant's case was contrary to
Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant was provided with ample
opportunities to present her arguments and to challenge the
submissions of the adversary in the proceedings and the judicial
authorities gave them due consideration. In the light of the
foregoing consideration, the Court finds that the reasons on which
the national courts based their conclusions are sufficient to exclude
any doubt that the way in which they established and assessed the
evidence in the applicant's case was unfair or arbitrary.
- It
follows that this complaint must be rejected as being manifestly
ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention that
that the interim orders had been unfair, that she had been unable to
afford an advocate and an independent expert examination, and that
she had been discriminated against on the ground of her social
status.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within the Court's competence ratione materiae,
it 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
IV. 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 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government argued that the applicant's claims were excessive and
unreasonable.
-
The Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress, anxiety and
frustration because of an unreasonable length of the proceedings in
her case. However, the amount claimed is excessive. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR
1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
charged on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claims for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic court and before the Court.
- Accordingly,
the Court does not award anything under this head.
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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 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, EUR 1,500 (one
thousand and five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the
date of the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 1 March 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
