[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF KRYUKOV v. UKRAINE (VI)
(Application
no. 53249/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kryukov v. Ukraine (VI),
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Rait
Maruste,
President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 53249/07) 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 Sergey Aleksandrovich Kryukov (“the applicant”),
on 10 November 2007.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
19 October 2009 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 1951 and lives in Melitopol.
A. The first set of proceedings
- On
23 October 1995 Mrs P., the applicant's former wife, instituted
divorce proceedings in the Melitopol Court against the applicant. She
also sought separation of their property.
- On
19 March 1996 the applicant lodged a counter-claim.
- On
10 January 1997 the court disjoined the divorce proceedings from the
proceedings concerning separation of property.
- By
a judgment of 15 May 2002, the court allowed the applicant's
counter-claim in part and ordered the separation of property
comprising of various household items (furniture, kitchen utensils,
etc.).
- On
25 July 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the
above judgment.
- On
16 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against
the above decisions and on 11 November 2002 he requested the courts
to renew the procedural time-limit for lodging it. On 2 December
2002 the Melitopol Court rejected the applicant's request as
unsubstantiated. On 24 March 2003 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal
upheld the above decision. On 19 August 2004 the Supreme Court
quashed the above decisions as unsubstantiated and on 27 September
2004 the Melitopol Court renewed the applicant the time-limit for
lodging his appeal in cassation.
- On
24 March 2007 the Supreme Court forwarded the applicant's appeal in
cassation to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal, which, acting as a
court of cassation, rejected it as unsubstantiated on 7 May
2007.
- According
to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant
amended his counter-claim on several occasions. The courts adjourned
eight hearings following his requests or due to his failure to
appear. Some nine hearings were further adjourned following the
requests of Mrs P., her failure to appear or due to the illness of a
judge.
B. The second set of proceedings
- The
applicant stated that in September 2005 he had been deprived of a
flat he had lived in together with Mrs P. The applicant instituted
court proceedings against Mrs P. concerning his right to live in the
flat. He has not provided any information as to their outcome.
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
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 7 May
2007. The proceedings thus lasted for about nine years and eight
months before 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).
- The
Court considers that the complexity of the case and the conduct of
the applicant, who somewhat contributed to the length of the
proceedings (see paragraph 12 above), cannot explain their overall
length. On the other hand, the Court finds that the protraction of
the proceedings was mainly caused by the lengthy consideration of the
case by the Melitopol Court (see paragraphs 7-8 above) and by the
Supreme Court (see paragraphs 10-11 above), for which the Government
did not provide plausible explanation. Furthermore, the Government
did not explain and did not provide any supporting documents to
demonstrate that the applicant's requests for the adjournment of some
of the hearings caused lengthy delays.
- 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, for instance, Frydlender v. France,
cited above; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine,
no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Moroz
and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02,
§ 62, 21 December 2006).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to 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. REMAININIG COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the
Convention about the outcome of the proceedings. He further
complained under Article 8 of the Convention that
he had been unlawfully deprived of the flat. Relying on Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleged that the separation of the
property jointly owned by him and his former wife had not been in
accordance with the law.
- 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.
- 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.”
- The
applicant submitted his claims for just satisfaction out of time.
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 under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention about the length of the first set of proceedings
admissible and the remaining complaints inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
