CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 21895/05 by Emil Reyngoldovich KANEVSKIY against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2   December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2005, 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 Emil Reyngoldovich Kanevskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Novokuznetsk, in the Kemerovo Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 11   September 2002 the applicant brought a court action against a State enterprise “West-Siberian Railway” ( «Западно-Сибирская железная дорога» ), his former employer. He sought reinstatement in his job, lost wages and non-pecuniary damages. 1.     The first round of the proceedings By a decision of 26   September 2002, the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Novokuznetsk (“District Court”) refused to open the proceedings on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. On 30   October 2002, on the applicant’s appeal, the Kemerovo Regional Court (“Regional Court”) quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court. On 27   November 2002 the District Court held a preparatory meeting. The first hearing on the merits was scheduled for 24   December 2002. Owing to the respondent’s failure to appear, it was adjourned until 14   January 2003. On 14   January 2003 the District Court, on the motion by the respondent, decided to transfer the applicant’s case to another district court of Novokuznetsk. On 21   February 2003 the Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court. Of the six hearings held between 21   February and 2   July 2003, two were adjourned owing to the respondent’s failure to appear, two at the request of the respondent and two at the request of the applicant. On 2   July 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On   12   September 2003, on the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination. 2.     The second round of the proceedings Having received the case file, on 8   October 2003 the District Court held a preparatory meeting. In the period between 8   October 2003 and 9   June 2004 the court scheduled ten hearings on the merits. Three of them were adjourned on the ground of the respondent’s failure to appear, one owing to the default by the applicant’s representative and one because of the applicant’s illness. Three hearings were adjourned at the request of the respondent who asked the court to summon and examine additional witnesses and to obtain certain documentary evidence. Two hearings were adjourned pending receipt of the documents. On 6   May 2004 another presiding judge took charge of the case. By a decision of 9   June 2004, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the respondent company had been liquidated. The applicant appealed. On 30 July 2004 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 9   June 2004 and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination. The preparatory hearing scheduled for 15   September 2004 was adjourned because neither party appeared in court. The two followed hearings did not take place owing to the default by the respondent’s representative. By a decision of 4   November 2004, the District Court ordered that a joint-stock company “Russian railways” ( ОАО «Российские железные дороги» ) entered in the proceedings as a co-respondent. By a decision of 22   November 2004, the court transferred the dispute to a court in another town where the head office of the new party was situated. The applicant appealed. On 14   January 2005 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 22   November 2004 and remitted the case to the District Court. The appeal court also indicated that the proceedings before the first-instance court had exceeded a reasonable time. The first hearing after the District Court received the case file was scheduled for 24   February 2005. It was, however, postponed until the following day because of the presiding judge’s mission to another town. Of   the six subsequent hearings, one was adjourned owing to the parties’ failure to appear in court, three at the request of the respondent to summon additional witnesses, one because of the illness of the respondent’s lawyer and one at the request of the applicant’s lawyer. On 14   July 2005 the District Court delivered a judgment by which it ordered that the applicant be reinstated in his job and the “Russian railways” pay him lost wages, non-pecuniary damages and legal costs and expenses. On 25   July 2005 the respondent brought its appeal. Three months later, on 25   October 2005, the appeal was withdrawn. The proceedings were discontinued and the judgment of 14   July 2005 became final. COMPLAINT The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. THE LAW The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings constituted a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed by Article 6   §   1 of the Convention, which provides, in its relevant part, as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by [a] tribunal within a reasonable time...” The complaint relates to the proceedings which began on 16   September 2002 and ended on 25   October 2005. They lasted, accordingly, three years, one month and nine days in two rounds at two levels of jurisdiction. According to the Government, the length of the proceedings complied with the “reasonable time” requirement. The proceedings were complex because the applicant and his former employer argued over the former’s performance and fulfilment of contractual duties. Besides, owing to the liquidation of the initial respondent, the court had to invite a new party to join the proceedings. They further submitted that some of the delays had been caused by the parties’ failure to attend the hearings. On several occasions the respondent had asked the court to obtain further evidence. The applicant had appealed against several procedural decisions and the judgment of 2   July 2003. Both parties had taken full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of their interest. The judicial authorities could not be blamed for the delays that had been caused by the parties’ conduct. As to the conduct of the authorities, the hearings had been held on a regular basis and there had been no significant periods of inactivity in the examination of the case. The applicant maintained his complaint. He claimed that the proceedings had not been complex and that the hearings had been repeatedly adjourned. 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). Only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement (see H. v.   France , 24   October 1989, §   55, Series   A no.   162-A). The Court notes that the proceedings at issue comprised two rounds and took three years and one month at two levels of jurisdiction. The Court accepts that the proceedings were of a certain complexity. They concerned a labour dispute and required the examination of witnesses and documentary evidence. In addition, the liquidation of the respondent company necessitated a time-consuming replacement of the party to the dispute. As regards the conduct of the national authorities, the Court observes that the domestic courts were active and fixed the hearings at regular intervals. The numerous adjournments of the hearings took place because of the parties’ failure to appear and their requests to obtain new evidence. The only adjournment attributable to the Russian authorities (on 24   February 2005) caused a negligible, one-day, delay. In the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court concludes that the overall length of the proceedings was not excessive and satisfied the reasonable time requirement under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. It follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Articles   35   §   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis Registrar President