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 £5, 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 RYPAKOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 16004/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8
January 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 Rypakova v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 December 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 16004/04) 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, Ms Tatyana
Vasilyevna Rypakova (“the applicant”), on 9 April 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Ilyin, a lawyer practising in
Arkhangelsk. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
29 August 2006 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 FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
- In
1994 the applicant paid 10,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to a
cooperative society whose main activity was the construction of
garages (гаражно-строительный
кооператив)
in order to be provided with a garage as one of its members. Since
she was not provided with one, on 30 January 1995 the applicant
sued the society by lodging a claim with the Lomonosovskiy District
Court of Arkhangelsk. The applicant sought to be reinstated as a
member of the society and to have her property rights in respect of
the garage recognised.
- The
hearing was adjourned on six occasions: twice due to the need to
collect evidence; twice due to the respondent’s failure to
appear, once due to the necessity to summon witnesses and once
without any specified reason.
- On
28 March 1996 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court found that she had
never been accepted as a member of the cooperative society in
accordance with the established procedure and, therefore, had not
acquired the right to be provided with a garage. On 22 July 1996 the
judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for fresh
consideration.
- The
hearing was postponed five times: twice due to the need to collect
evidence; twice due to the respondent’s failure to appear and
once due to the necessity to summon witnesses. The Government claimed
that on one occasion, on 24 December 1997, the applicant failed to
appear for the hearing. The applicant contested this statement,
claiming that she had been present together with her lawyer.
- On
31 March 1998 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk granted
the part of the applicant’s claim relating to her reinstatement
as a member of the cooperative society and dismissed the parts
relating to property rights over a garage and non-pecuniary damages.
On 8 June 1998 the judgment was quashed on appeal by the Arkhangelsk
Regional Court and the case was remitted for fresh examination.
- On
23 February 1999 the applicant filed an additional claim against the
society, requesting the court to declare the decision of its members
concerning the annulment of her membership void and to acknowledge
her title to the garage.
- The
hearing was postponed three times due to the respondent’s
failure to appear.
- On
16 February 2000 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
granted the part of the applicant’s claim relating to her
reinstatement as a member of the cooperative society and awarded the
applicant RUB 5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and RUB 2,000 for costs.
The court dismissed the remainder of the claim.
- On
17 April 2000 the judgment was quashed on appeal by the Arkhangelsk
Regional Court due to the wrong assessment of evidence and the case
was remitted for fresh examination.
- The
hearing was postponed nine times: six times due to the respondent’s
failure to appear, twice due to the need to collect additional
evidence and once due to the expiration of terms of office of the
presiding judge. The Government claimed that on one occasion, on 1
September 2000, the applicant failed to appear for the hearing. The
applicant contested this statement, claiming that she had been
present together with her lawyer.
- From
13 December 2000 to 9 January 2001 the proceedings were suspended due
to the appointment of an examination relating to the value of the
garage.
- On
15 February 2002 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
granted the applicant’s claim and acknowledged her title to the
garage.
- On
9 April 2003 the judgment was quashed by way of supervisory review by
the Presidium of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court due to procedural
violations and the case was remitted for fresh examination.
- On
20 May 2003 the applicant lodged another claim against the society.
She requested the acknowledgement of her title to the garage and the
invalidation of a sales contract which had been concluded between a
third person and the society in respect of this garage.
- On
27 May 2003 the two cases were joined and a hearing was listed for 26
June 2003.
- On
26 June 2003 the hearing was adjourned due to the illness of the
judge and on the same day the claim to be reinstated as a member of
the cooperative society was severed so as to constitute separate
proceedings. The proceedings concerning the applicant’s title
to the garage and the invalidation of the sales contract with a third
person were suspended until the examination of the claim as regards
her membership of the society.
- On
11 December 2003 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
dismissed the applicant’s claim to be reinstated as a member of
the cooperative society. On 26 January 2004 the Arkhangelsk Regional
Court upheld the judgment and it became final.
- On
15 April 2004 the proceedings concerning the title to the garage were
resumed.
- On
16 April 2004 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
dismissed the applicant’s claim. The judgment was not appealed
against and became final on 6 May 2004.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in respect of
the title to the garage 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
proceedings concerning the applicant’s title to the garage
lasted from 30 January 1995 to 16 April 2004, i.e. nine years, two
months and eighteen days. The Court observes that the period to be
taken into consideration began on 5 May 1998, when the Convention
came into force in respect of Russia. 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 which by that time
had been pending for over three years.
- The
Court observes that in the present case, at least five years, eleven
months and thirteen days fall within the Court’s competence
ratione temporis.
- Furthermore,
the period of fourteen months between 15 February 2002, when a
seemingly final domestic decision was delivered, and 9 April 2003,
when it was quashed under supervisory review, had to be excluded (see
Markin v. Russia (dec.), no. 59502/00, 16 September 2004). The
remaining period to be assessed is four years six months and twenty
three days.
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
- The
Court observes 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 case was not particularly difficult to
determine.
- As
to the applicant’s conduct, the Government argued that the
applicant had contributed to the delay in the proceedings by
submitting additional claims and by her occasional failure to appear
for the hearings.
- In
respect of the argument concerning additional claims, the Court
observes that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full
advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of
his interest (see, mutatis mutandis, Yağcı and
Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A
no. 319 A). As to the applicant’s absences, the Court
notes that the parties disagreed on factual matters concerning the
applicant’s attendance of the hearings on 24 December 1998 and
on 1 September 2000. In the Court’s opinion, even assuming that
the applicant had failed to appear on these two occasions, her
conduct could not have contributed notably to the length of the
proceedings.
- The
Court observes, on the other hand, that substantial periods of
inactivity, for which the Government have not submitted any
satisfactory explanation, are attributable to the domestic
authorities. After 8 June 1998, for instance, when the judgment was
quashed on appeal, the hearings were adjourned three times due to the
defendant’s failure to appear. The next examination did not
take place until 16 February 2000, i.e. one year, eight months and
ten days after that date. After the next quashing of the judgment on
appeal on 17 April 2000 the hearings were adjourned six times due to
the defendant’s failure to appear. The next examination did not
take place until 15 February 2002. During this time the court
adjourned the hearing on two occasions in order to obtain additional
evidence.
- The Court notes that the conduct of the defendant was
one of the reasons for the prolongation of the proceedings. In the
Court’s opinion, the domestic authorities failed to take
adequate steps in order to ensure its
attendance. During the proceedings the defendant defaulted on at
least ten occasions which resulted in considerable delays. There is
no indication that the court reacted in any way to that behaviour.
Accordingly, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not
avail themselves of the measures available to them under national law
to discipline the parties to the proceedings and to ensure
that the case be heard within a reasonable
time (see, mutatis
mutandis, Kuśmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, §
65, 21 September 2004).
- The
Court also finds it peculiar that in a case which was of no
particular complexity several hearings had to be adjourned in order
for additional evidence to be produced (compare with Di Pede v.
Italy, 26 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1996 IV).
- 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).
- 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
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s
complaints as submitted by her. However, having regard to all the
material in its possession, it finds that these 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 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 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
and EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered this claim to be excessive and unreasonable.
- 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 accepts that the applicant suffered
distress, anxiety and frustration exacerbated by the unreasonable
length of the proceedings. Making its assessment on an equitable
basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant also claimed 15,193 Russian roubles for
the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts.
- The Government contested the claim.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the applicant’s claim because there is no causal link
between the violation found and those 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 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 2,000 (two thousand
euros), in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount;
(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 8 January 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
