[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF YEFREMOV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 43799/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Yefremov v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Mark
Villiger,
President,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Ganna
Yudkivska,
judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 43799/05) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Ukrainian
national, Mr Mykola Oleksiyovych Yefremov (“the applicant”),
on 19 November 2005.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
11 January 2010 the
President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No.
14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kharkiv.
- He owns a house in that city. It stands on State-owned
plot of land. On 11 June 1986 the local authorities ordered the
demolition of the above house and the return of the land, with a view
to building a new block of flats in its place, pursuant to the urban
development plan. The authorities offered the applicant a three-room
apartment and fixed him certain amounts in compensation. However, the
house has not been demolished so far and remains in the applicant’s
possession.
1. The first set of proceedings
- On
21 August 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the
Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv against the local authorities
claiming the right to privatise the plot of land on which his house
stood.
- On
8 January 2002 the court rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The
applicant requested an extension of the procedural time-limit for
lodging his appeal against the above judgment, as he had found out
about it only on 18 March 2002, and the courts granted the extension
requested.
- On
17 September 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the
above judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
- On
27 March 2003 the Dzerzhynskyy Court rejected the applicant’s
claim. It found that the authorities had fixed compensation for the
land, but he had not applied for it. The court explained that the
applicant was entitled to apply to the local authorities to receive
the compensation.
- On
15 July 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment.
- On
12 May 2005 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera as a panel of
three judges, upheld the lower courts’ decisions and rejected
the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated. The
applicant was served with a copy of the final ruling on 18 June 2005.
- In
the course of the proceedings the courts adjourned four hearings upon
the applicant’s requests or due to his failure to appear.
Furthermore, nineteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence or
illness of the judge dealing with the case, absence of the
respondents, their requests for adjournments or for unspecified
reasons.
2. The second set of proceedings
- In
1999 the local authorities annulled the State registration of the
applicant’s title to the house.
- On
19 April 2006 the Dzerzhynskyy Court invalidated the authorities’
decision. It also invalidated their decision of 11 June 1986 (see
paragraph 5 above). On 16 October 2008 the same court confirmed the
applicant’s title to the house in question.
15. As
it appears from the case file, subsequently the applicant lodged a
new request with the authorities for privatisation of the land
surrounding his house and its examination is under-way.
- The
local authorities sought a review of the judgment of 16 October 2008,
allegedly because their representatives had been unable to be present
in the hearing, but their request was dismissed. According to the
applicant, the authorities also requested the courts to review the
judgment of 19 April 2006. He provided no details as to the outcome
of the latter request.
THE LAW
I. THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained that the length of the first set of proceedings
had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which
reads, in so far as relevant, 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.
- The
Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began only
on 11 September 1997, when the recognition by Ukraine of the right of
individual petition took effect. 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 18 June 2005, when the
applicant received a copy of the final ruling (see Widmann
v. Austria,
no. 42032/98, § 29, 19 June
2003, and Gitskaylo v. Ukraine,
no. 17026/05, § 34, 14 February 2008). The
proceedings thus lasted for about seven years and nine months for
three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the 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
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).
- Turning
to the circumstances of the case, the Court observes that major
delays took place during the examination of the case by the
Dzerzhynskyy Court between 11 September 1997 and 8 January 2002 (four
years and four months) and by the Supreme Court between 15 July 2003
and 12 May 2005 (one year and eight months). Although the applicant
somewhat contributed to some of these delays, the Court considers
that he cannot be held responsible for them. Furthermore, the
case was neither legally nor factually complex. As regards the fact
that the courts had to adjourn the hearings on a number of occasions
(see paragraph 12 above), the Court recalls that it is the role of
the domestic courts to manage their proceedings so that they
are expeditious and effective
(see Moroz and Others v.
Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 60, 21 December 2006).
In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the main
responsibility for the protracted length of the proceedings rested
with the State.
- 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, among many other
authorities, Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine,
no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Moroz
and Others v. Ukraine, cited above,
§ 62).
- Having
examined all the material before 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.
II. OTHER COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the
Convention about the unfairness and outcome of the first set of
proceedings and about the lack of public hearing in the Supreme
Court. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he
could not privatise the land on which his house stood and that he had
been deprived of his house without any compensation. The applicant
further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
about the authorities’ attempts to have the court decisions
adopted in the course of the second set of proceedings reviewed.
- Having
carefully examined the applicant’s submissions in the light of
all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters
complained of are 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.
27. It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible 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, costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed a global sum of 10,500 euros (EUR) comprising
compensation for non-pecuniary damage and unspecified costs and
expenses.
- The
Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
- The
Court notes that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage on account of the violation found. Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards him EUR 1,200 under this head. As regards
the claim for costs and expenses, the Court
notes that it is unspecified and not supported by any documents and,
therefore, rejects it.
B. 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 under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the first set 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
(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 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into the national 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 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 16 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President
