CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s62BA9D11 { width:191.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s19BF1B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-1.6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 33589/05 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SHANSKOV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicant and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the existence of effective domestic remedies to complain about the length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for delays which occurred in the process of the examination of the applicants’ civil cases. In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceedings, the relevant complexity of the cases, the applicants’ conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the “reasonable time” requirement (see, among other authorities, Vasilchenko v. Russia , no.   34784/02, §§ 41-43, 23 September 2010; Danilina v. Russia (dec.), no.   5727/04, 11 March 2010; Kuznetsova v. Russia (dec.), no. 9839/03, 24   May 2007; Antonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 38020/03, 3 November 2011; Markin v.   Russia (dec.), no. 59502/00, 16 September 2004; and Kuznetsov v.   Russia (dec.), no. 73994/01, 17 June 2004). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings) The applicants also complained that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings in their civil cases. The Court reiterates in this respect that this provision only applies to those with an arguable claim under the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61). Given that the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 was rejected for being manifestly ill-founded, the complaint under Article 13 should also be declared manifestly ill-founded and rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4   of the Convention.   In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. D.     Remaining complaints The applicants also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 21 July 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth/Date of registration   Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Level of jurisdiction Other complaints under well-established case-law     33589/05 15/08/2005 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SHANSKOV 24/10/1971 Vereshchagina Natalya Mikhaylovna Moscow 19/04/2001   24/02/2005   3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings     22753/06 12/05/2006 (4 applicants) Lyudmila Fedorovna BAL 22/05/1951   Sergey Olegovich BAL 19/05/1950   Natalya Sergeyevna BAL 22/08/1972   Andrey Sergeyevich BAL 01/02/1976 Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich Voronezh 10/12/2001   24/11/2005   3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 15 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings     26337/06 29/04/2006 Nikolay Vladimirovich SOROKIN 04/06/1939     04/10/2004   14/03/2006   1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 11 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings       2737/07 23/11/2006 Natalya Vladimirovna ANDRUSENKO 03/05/1984 GORBUNOVA Lyubov Petrovna Omsk 27/04/2004       23/05/2006   28/12/2005       06/09/2006   1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 2 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   3 month(s) and 15 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings     12238/07 14/02/2007 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich LEBEDEV 23/09/1961     01/12/2004   02/10/2008   3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 2 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings