CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF43307A6 { width:17.2pt; display:inline-block } .sD9BBAAC { width:179.1pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 73994/01 by Leonid Ivanovich KUZNETSOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   E. Steiner ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev, judges and   Mr   S. Quesada , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Leonid Ivanovich Kuznetsov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in the village of Su-Psekh, Krasnodar Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant lived and worked in Chukotka, a territory in the extreme North-East of Russia. In February 1991 the applicant fell victim to a work-related accident causing 60% disability. During the two years following the accident he received regular indemnity payments from his former employer, a private company “Zarya” (hereinafter referred to as “the company”). In July 1993 the company stopped these payments. On 25   October   1993 the applicant lodged an action against the company, seeking recovery of regular payments and compensation of pecuniary damages in the total amount of RUR 58,477 and compensation of non-pecuniary damages in the amount of RUR 2,000,000. This action was filed with the Chaunskiy District Court of the Chukotka Region. On 31 December 1996 the applicant applied to the court with a view to replace the defendant. He claimed that the company was de facto bankrupt, though formally it continued to exist. Referring to the social security legislation, the applicant claimed that the authorities should have accepted the obligation to pay the indemnity instead of the bankrupt company. On 4   February   1997 the Chaunskiy District Court accepted the applicant’s arguments to have the company replaced by the social security authorities as defendants. Since the regional social security authorities were located in the city of Anadyr, the court decided to transfer the jurisdiction to another court. The case was thus transmitted to the Anadyr Town Court of the Chukotka Region. On 20 March 1997 the applicant requested the district prosecutor to initiate liquidation proceedings against the company. On 29 April 1997 the Presidium of the Chukotka Regional Court quashed the decision of 4 February 1997 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case back to the Chaunskiy District Court. The Presidium emphasised that the company was not formally liquidated, and that thus the first instance court had had no grounds for replacing the company as a defendant. In March, June and July 1997 the applicant asked the Prosecutor’s Office to initiate liquidation proceedings against the company, but to no avail. In July 1997 the applicant complained to the prosecutor about the failure of the Chaunskiy District Court to deal with his case. His complaint was forwarded to the President of the Chaunskiy District Court. By a letter of 31   March 1998 the President informed the applicant that the delay could be explained in part by the backlog of cases in the District Court and the lack of staff. The President further noted that the company did not exist de facto , but that it was not formally liquidated. On 1 April 1998 the applicant filed a new request with the district prosecutor’s office, seeking to initiate liquidation proceedings against the company. It appears that this time the case was brought before the court by the authorities and on 20 October 1998 the Commercial Court of the Chukotka Region declared the company bankrupt. On 21 May 1999 the company was formally liquidated. On 19 May 1999 the applicant applied to the Chaunskiy District Court, requesting it to replace the company with the State social security service as a defendant. On 4   June 1999 the Chaunskiy District Court replaced the defendant. The case was transmitted to the Anadyr Town Court. In 2000 the applicant filed with the General Prosecutor, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and the Chukotka Regional Court a number of complaints with the view to speeding up the proceedings. On 25 July 2000 the applicant increased the amount of pecuniary damages claimed from the Social Security Fund to RUR   164,650. On 21 September 2000 the Anadyr Town Court examined the case. It granted the applicant’s claim in part, awarding him RUR 8,319 in damages against the social security authorities. The applicant appealed. On 21   December 2000 the Chukotka Regional Court overruled the first instance court and remitted the case to the Anadyr Town Court for a fresh examination. On 9   January 2001 the applicant raised the amount of his claim to RUR   249,444. On 27 February 2001 the Anadyr Town Court adopted a judgment whereby it confirmed in essence the judgment of 21   September   2000. The applicant was awarded RUR 8,319. On 23   March   2001 the applicant filed an appeal against this judgment. On 26   June 2001 the first instance judgment was upheld by the Chukotka Regional Court. COMPLAINTS Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about the length of the proceedings in his case. He also claims by reference to Article   13, that he has not had an effective remedy in relation to his complaint about the length of proceedings. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains about the length of civil proceedings which he brought against the company and the State to claim damages related to his injury. He invokes Article 6 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, provides as follows: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time ...” The Government submit that the case should be regarded as complex both on the facts and in law. They emphasised that “the impossibility of establishing a defendant or his legal successor contributed to the length of judicial proceedings”. The Government also submit that “since 19 May 1999 which is the date of the forwarding to the Chaunskiy District Court of a copy of the decision of the Arbitration Tribunal of the Chukotka Autonomous Region of 20 April 1999 to liquidate the private company “Zarya”, the case was examined in conformity with the reasonable time requirement”. The applicant contests the Government’s allegation and maintains his complaints. A.     Period to be considered The proceedings commenced on 25 November 1993 and terminated on 26 June 2001, when the Chukotka Regional Court took the final decision. The proceedings therefore lasted a total of 7 years and 7 months. However, the Court observes that, when examining the length of the proceedings, the period to be considered only began on 5   May   1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. Thus, in this case, only 3 years, one month and 21 days fall within the Court’s competence ratione temporis . At the same time the Court recalls that it may also take into account the period of the proceedings preceding the date of ratification (see Ventura v. Italy , no.   7438/76, Commission decision of 9 March 1978, Decisions and Reports   (DR) 12, p. 38). Therefore, in considering the length of proceedings subsequent to 5 May 1998, the Court will have regard to the previous proceedings and take account of the stage which the proceedings had reached by then. B.     Reasonableness of the length of proceedings The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and that of the authorities before which the case was brought (cf. Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, § 67). The fact that the applicant was injured at work and, consequently, was entitled to regular indemnity payments has never been a subject of controversy. The civil courts primarily had to decide whether the defendant company still existed, and, if not, whether the State was under obligation to pay the indemnity in its stead. The Court therefore concludes that the case was of no particular complexity, at least as concerns the facts of the case. In the Court’s opinion, no significant delay in the proceedings can be attributed to the applicant. The applicant took procedural steps to defend his legal position and could not be blamed for any abuse of his procedural rights under the national law. Assessing the overall length, the Court notes that by 5 May 1998 (that is the date of the Convention entry into force with respect to Russia) the case had been pending before the Chaunskiy District Court for 4 years, 5 months and 10 days. The first instance court did not deal with the case primarily because it was unable to establish whether the defendant company still existed or not. At the same time the Court gives particular significance to the fact that after 1998 the proceedings were visibly expedited. Thus, in November   1998 the defendant company was declared bankrupt by the Commercial Court upon the authorities’ request. The official liquidation of the company in April   1999 cleared the way for the proceedings in the Chaunskiy District Court. In June 1999 the case was transmitted from this court to the Anadyr City Court, because the new defendant (the State social security service) was located in Anadyr. During the subsequent period the Court observes no substantial periods of the courts’ inactivity: in two years the case was examined twice by the first instance court and the court of appeal. The Court recalls that in principle the involvement of numerous instances does not absolve the judicial authorities of complying with the reasonable time requirement of Article   6   §   1 (see, most recently, Litoselitis v. Greece , no   62771/00, §   32, 5   February 2004). However, the period of about three years when different judicial authorities were constantly dealing with the case does not as such offend the guarantees of Article   6   §   1. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the length of the proceedings falling within the Court’s competence ratione temporis did not exceed the “reasonable time” requirement set out in Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §   3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §   4 of the Convention (see, a contrario , Kormacheva v. Russia , no 53084/99, 21 January 2004). 2. The applicant further complains that he had no effective remedies against the length of the proceedings in his case. He invokes Article 13 of the Convention in this respect, which provides as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” In their observations, the Government submit that this part of the applicant’s complaints is manifestly ill-founded. The Government do not support this conclusion with any reasoning. The applicant maintains his complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. In this regard the Court recalls that Article 13 of the Convention has been interpreted as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention (see, for example, the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, §   54). Given that the complaints about the length of the civil proceedings are manifestly ill-founded (see above), the applicant had no arguable claim for the purposes of Article   13 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §   4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Santiago Quesada   Christos L. Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President