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]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF
RUSNAKOVA v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 7575/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 January
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rusnakova v. Ukraine,
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 14 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 7575/05) 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, Ms Mariya Pavlovna Rusnakova (“the applicant”),
on 14 February 2005.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
24 November 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 1949 and lives in Nikopol, the Dnipropetrovsk
Region.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On
22 December 1987 the Nikopol Court found the applicant guilty of
violating road traffic rules and sentenced her to a fine and
withdrawal of her driving licence for three years. It allowed the
civil claim of the victim R. and obliged the applicant to pay him a
certain amount in compensation.
- On
16 February 1988 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the
judgment of 22 December 1987 as regards a part of R.’s claim
for compensation, which did not concern the damaged parts of his car
(see paragraph 7 below). It found that that part of the claim could
be determined within the framework of civil proceedings. The
remainder of the judgment of 22 December 1987 was upheld.
B. Civil proceedings instituted by the applicant
- In
July 1990 the applicant lodged a claim with the Nikopol Court for
recovery of property from R. She sought recovery of the parts of the
R.’s car (the damaged car body) which had been replaced by new
ones at her expense.
- Between
July 1990 and September 1997 the case was re-examined on four
occasions.
- On
2 September 1997 the Nikopol Court ordered R. to pay the applicant
1,260.85 Ukrainian hryvnias
(UAH) in compensation for the value of the property claimed and court
expenses.
- In
the course of the proceedings the car maintenance service joined the
case as a co-respondent.
- On
20 October 1997 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the
judgment of 2 September 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh
consideration.
- On
7 December 1999 the Nikopol Court ordered an expert examination in
the case.
- On
12 June 2000 the Nikopol Court allowed the applicant’s claims
against R. On 17 July 2000 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed
the judgment of 12 June 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh
consideration.
- On
28 January 2003 the Nikopol Court allowed the applicant’s
claims against R.
- On
22 May 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of
28 January 2003 and discontinued proceedings in the case. It found
that the issue of compensation for damage caused to the vehicle had
been determined in the course of the criminal proceedings and that
the applicant should have raised the claim within those proceedings.
On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 22
May 2003.
- In
the course of the civil proceedings the applicant once requested the
court to postpone a hearing. She also lodged requests for an expert
examination, for experts to be summoned and for certain documents to
be joined to the case. The respondent in the applicant’s case
failed to appear before the court on twelve occasions.
THE LAW
I. THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained that the length of the civil 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 ...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the applicant’s 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
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
excessive.
1. Period to be taken into consideration
- The
Government stated that the Court’s competence in the instant
case extended only to the events which had taken place after 11
September 1997, the date of the entry of the Convention into force in
respect of Ukraine.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings at issue began in July 1990, so part
of the proceedings about which the applicant complains falls outside
its jurisdiction ratione temporis. However, the Court
may take note of the state of the proceedings on 11 September 1997
when examining the complaint as a whole (see, mutatis mutandis,
Baggetta v. Italy, 25 June 1987, § 20, Series A no.
119, and Timotiyevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63158/00, 18 May
2004).
- As
to the period after 11 September 1997, the Court notes that it lasted
seven years and twenty one days (until 30 September 2004).
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
- The
Government submitted that the case had been examined without any
substantial delays that could be attributed to the State. They
further maintained that the civil proceedings had been complicated by
the fact that they had been linked to the criminal proceedings
against the applicant and involved several expert examinations. The
Government argued that the delays in the proceedings had been caused
by the parties’ behaviour.
- 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 facts of the present case, the Court notes that, although it
involved two expert examinations and there were a number of requests
lodged by the applicant, the proceedings were eventually discontinued
without any decision given on the merits. The Court further notes
that the proceedings had been pending before the domestic courts for
about seven years before 11 September 1997. In these circumstances,
the alleged complexity of the case and the applicant’s
behaviour alone cannot explain the lengthy period it took the
domestic courts of three instances to come to the conclusion that the
proceedings in the case were to be discontinued.
- The
Court also observes that the protraction of the proceedings was
mainly caused by the repeated reconsideration of the case (see
paragraphs 8, 11 and 13 above). The Court reiterates that, since
remittal is usually ordered because of errors committed by lower
courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings
discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see
Wierciszewska v. Poland,
no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
- 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; Goncharov v. Ukraine,
no. 7867/06, § 29, 10 December 2009; and Shastkiv and
Valitska v. Ukraine, no. 3638/04, § 41, 30 July 2009).
- 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. OTHER COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained of a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the outcome
of the criminal and civil proceedings.
- In the light of the materials in
its possession, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints
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 declared
inadmissible as 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 requested the Court to award her just satisfaction in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. She however did not
specify her claims.
- The
Government submitted that there were no grounds to award just
satisfaction to the applicant.
- 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 some non-pecuniary damage on account of the excessive
length of the civil proceedings in her case. Ruling on an equitable
basis, it awards her 1,200 euros (EUR) under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- Without
specifying the amount of her claim, the applicant requested the Court
to award her compensation for the costs and expenses.
- The
Government agreed that the applicant must have incurred some expenses
in corresponding with the Court.
- The
Court notes that the applicant provided relevant supporting documents
for the amount of EUR 10 she had paid for corresponding with the
Court. It therefore awards the applicant this amount for costs and
expenses.
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 under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention of 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 EUR 1,200 (one thousand
two hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10 (ten
euros) for costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
the above amounts, to be converted into 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
