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 TROSHKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 7514/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29
October 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 Troshkin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 7514/05) 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 Igor
Viktorovich Troshkin (“the applicant”), on 10 February
2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr M. Kuchayev, a lawyer practising in
Chelyabinsk. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were initially represented by Ms V.
Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr A. Savenkov,
First Deputy Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation.
- On
13 December 2007 the
President of the First Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3).
- The Government objected to the joint examination of the
admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the
Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Chelyabinsk.
A. The first round of the proceedings
- In
1995 the applicant's vehicle was damaged in a road traffic accident.
On 25 June 1997 he sued a private company in charge of road
maintenance for damages. He alleged that the accident had been caused
by its failure to clean up the road. The examination of the matter
was stayed pending the payment of the court fee by the applicant. The
proceedings were resumed on 13 October 1997.
- On
29 October 1997 the Sovetskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk granted a
request by the respondent company to adjourn the proceedings pending
the criminal investigation into the road traffic accident. The
proceedings were resumed on 27 April 1998.
- On
25 May 1998 the representative of the respondent company failed
to appear and the hearing was adjourned.
- On 4 and 16 June and 5 October 1998 the District
Court adjourned the court hearing as the applicant modified his
claims.
- On
9 October 1998 the District Court granted a request by the
respondent company for an expert report to determine the value of the
applicant's vehicle and stayed the proceedings. The respondent
company failed to pay the expert's fee and the case file was returned
to the court.
- On
27 January and 11 March 1999 the District Court adjourned
the hearing, granting the respondent company's requests to study the
case file.
- Between 4 November 1999 and 13 April 2000
the proceedings were adjourned pending the criminal investigation
further to requests by the respondent company and the applicant.
- On
1 December 2000 the District Court adjourned the hearing further
to a request by the respondent company to summon new witnesses.
- On 20 March 2001 the applicant asked the court to
adjourn the hearing pending the criminal investigation.
- On
27 September 2001 the District Court granted the applicant's claims
in part. On 15 November 2001 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed
that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh
examination. The Regional Court noted that the District Court had
failed to properly establish the circumstances of the road traffic
accident and to determine the responsibility of all the parties
involved.
B. The second round of the proceedings
- On 4 February 2002 the District Court adjourned
the preparatory hearing owing to the parties' failure to appear. The
preparatory hearing was subsequently held on 13 March 2002.
- On 27 May and 6 November 2002 the District
Court granted the applicant's request and adjourned the hearing
pending the criminal investigation.
- On
2 February 2004 the applicant asked the court to resume the
hearing of the matter. On 2 March 2004 the District Court
annulled its own decision of 6 November 2002 and resumed the
proceedings.
- On 19 March 2004 the applicant asked the court to
adjourn the hearing in order to modify his claims.
- On
13 May 2004 the applicant submitted the modified claims and
asked the court to summon certain witnesses.
- On
17 June 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims in
full. On 9 December 2004 the Regional Court quashed that judgment and
granted the applicant's claim in part. The court based its findings,
inter alia, on the materials in the criminal investigation
file, such as the crime-scene investigation and forensic expert
reports.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- 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
Government contested that argument. They considered the length of the
civil proceedings in the instant case to be reasonable given that the
significant delays in the proceedings were due to the applicant, who
had repeatedly modified his claims and asked for adjournments. The
judicial authorities had dealt with the case with due care. The
hearings had been scheduled on a regular basis and the parties'
requests had been examined at the same hearing. The matter was
complex and the court of first instance had had to stay the
proceedings pending the ongoing criminal investigation into the road
traffic accident, the findings of which were decisive for the proper
resolution of the civil dispute.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that the case was
not complex, that significant delays had occurred as a result of the
mala fide conduct of the respondent company, whose
representative had deliberately protracted the proceedings, and that
the domestic judicial authorities had done nothing to rectify the
situation.
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
1. The period under consideration
- The
Court observes that the applicant initiated the civil proceedings on
25 June 1997. However, the period to be taken into consideration for
the purposes of the present case began only on 5 May 1998, when the
Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. In assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account
must, nevertheless, be taken of the state of the proceedings at the
time. The period in question ended on 9 December 2004 with the
final decision of the Regional Court. It lasted, accordingly, a total
of seven years and five and a half months, of which six years and
seven months fall within the Court's jurisdiction. During that period
the case was examined twice at two levels of jurisdiction.
2. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings
- 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). Only delays attributable to the State may justify
a finding of failure to comply with the “reasonable time”
requirement (see, among numerous authorities, Proszak v. Poland,
16 December 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1997 VIII).
- The
Court observes that the proceedings in question concerned issues of
civil liability arising from a road traffic accident which was of a
certain complexity. However, the complexity of the case cannot, in
itself, justify the overall duration of the proceedings, namely six
years and seven months.
- As
regards the applicant's conduct, the Court observes that he asked on
several occasions for adjournments of the proceedings in order to
modify his claims. Those requests caused in total a delay of seven
months (see paragraphs 9 and 19 above). The Court also notes that on
one occasion the applicant failed to appear for a preparatory hearing
(see paragraph 16 above), causing another delay of approximately
three weeks.
- As for the applicant's requests to adjourn the
proceedings pending the criminal investigation into the road traffic
accident, the Court takes note of the Government's argument that it
was incumbent on the District Court to adjourn the proceedings
pending the criminal investigation in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the applicant cannot be held responsible for any delay
resulting from his requests to await the completion of the criminal
investigation. The Court further observes that the proceedings were
adjourned on at least three occasions pending the criminal
investigation, causing delays of seven and a half months, six months
and one year and eight months respectively (see paragraphs 12, 14 and
17 above). Admittedly, the findings of the criminal investigation
were decisive for the resolution of the civil dispute initiated by
the applicant and, as the Government pointed out, the District Court
had to wait for the completion of the criminal investigation.
However, the Court reiterates in that connection that 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, ECHR 2006 VII). Accordingly, the Court
considers that the adjournments of the proceedings owing to the
lengthy criminal investigation seriously protracted the proceedings
and were attributable to the authorities.
- Lastly,
the Court notes that between 9 October 1998 and 11 March
1999 two hearings were adjourned following requests by the respondent
company (1) to commission an expert report, which they subsequently
failed to pay for, and (2) to study the case file, and that on one
occasion its representative failed to appear. The respondent
company's conduct thus caused another delay of five months in the
proceedings. In the Court's opinion, it was incumbent on the District
Court 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, § 34, 21 September 2004).
However, the judicial authorities failed to do so and the
above-mentioned delay in the proceedings is also attributable to the
authorities.
- Making
an overall assessment, and 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.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The applicant further complained under Article 6
of the Convention that the domestic courts had erred in their
findings and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had not
granted his claims in full.
- However,
having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as
these complaints fall within its competence ratione materiae,
the Court finds that there is no 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 19,006.88 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage, representing the value of his vehicle, which had been damaged
as a result of the road traffic accident, and EUR 100,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government opined that the applicant's allegations should not give
rise to an award of any compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In any
event, they considered the applicant's claims excessive and submitted
that a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just
satisfaction.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore dismisses this claim.
On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant must have
suffered distress and frustration resulting from the authorities'
failure to determine his claims within a reasonable time. Ruling on
an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 3,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
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 3,000
(three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any
tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles 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 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 29 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
