[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF SHAPOVALOVA v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 18508/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22
September 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shapovalova v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger,
judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 August 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 18508/07) 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, Mrs Lidiya Semenovna Shapovalova (“the
applicant”), on 3 April 2007.
2. The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agents, Mrs Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.
- On
8 September 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 1945 and lives in Donetsk.
- On
17 November 2001 she instituted court proceedings against her
employer and the Social Insurance Fund for the recovery of
health-related payments allegedly due to her.
- On
10 September 2003 the Kuybyshevskyy District Court (“the
District Court”) delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed
against it. On 13 November 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal
(“the Court of Appeal”) requested the applicant to lodge
her appeal, by 25 December 2003, in accordance with the procedural
requirements. Following that, on 15 January 2004 it quashed the
above judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.
- On
29 November 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 25 March
2005 the Court of Appeal upheld it. On 3 October 2007 the Kyiv City
Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, quashed the above
decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination.
- On
17 June 2010 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim
as unsubstantiated.
- According
to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant
modified her claim on four occasions. Two hearings were adjourned due
to the applicant’s and other parties’ failure to appear.
Thirty further hearings were adjourned, mainly due to other parties’
failure to appear, the absence or sickness of a judge, the need to
collect additional documents or for unspecified reasons. Two expert
examinations were ordered and lasted for about one year and one
month.
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.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 17 November 2001 and
ended on 17 June 2010. It thus lasted eight years and seven months
for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) 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 considers that the
complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant, who somewhat
contributed to the length of the proceedings (see paragraphs 6 and 9
above), cannot explain their overall length. On the other hand, the
Court finds that the protraction of the proceedings was mainly caused
by two remittals of the case for fresh examination (see paragraphs 6
and 7 above) and by the repeated adjournments of the court hearings
(see paragraph 9 above). It concludes, therefore, that the main
responsibility for the lengthy duration of the proceedings rests 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 Frydlender,
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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
- The applicant also complained
under Articles 1, 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about and on account of the unfavourable
outcome of the proceedings.
- 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 (a) 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
- In
respect of pecuniary damage, the applicant
claimed “3,150,989.50
or 51,791,122.91”
Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) and asked the Court to oblige the Social
Insurance Fund to pay her certain monthly payments. She also claimed
EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claims for pecuniary damage and, in respect
of non-pecuniary damage, left the matter to the Court’s
discretion.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant
must have sustained non-pecuniary damage and awards the full sum
claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 500 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. She
provided copes of the receipts to the amount of UAH 85.63
for correspondence with the Court.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its
case law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and
expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to
award the sum of EUR 8 for the proceedings before the Court.
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 EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8 (eight euros) for costs and expenses,
plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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 amounts 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 22 September 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy
Registrar President
