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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37844/05 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich RYABCHENKO and Irina Alekseyevna RYABCHENKO against Russia and 15 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 were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Some 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.     Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings) Certain applicants 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. D.     Remaining complaints Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles 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 1. 37844/05 05/10/2005 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich RYABCHENKO 25/04/1955   Irina Alekseyevna RYABCHENKO 05/11/1955     05/06/2004   08/07/2005   1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 4 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction     2. 27724/06 05/06/2006 Larisa Yakovlevna IOSEVICH 20/03/1939 Shlygin Vladimir Nikolayevich St Petersburg 18/11/2002   14/04/2006   3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 28 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     3. 13722/07 22/02/2007 Nikolay Nikolayevich YEPIFANOV 05/11/1960 Telyatyev Igor Yuryevich Arkhangelsk 02/07/2004   19/04/2007   2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     4. 20171/07 10/04/2007 Nadezhda Mikhaylovna MASTEGA 21/06/1959     19/06/2003       02/06/2005   21/04/2005       12/10/2006   1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 3 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 11 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 5. 40252/07 07/08/2007 Arab Amkhadovich SHAMSADOV 19/07/1959     05/04/2005   21/02/2007   1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 17 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   6. 52147/07 30/09/2007 Leonid Maksimovich VIDYAKIN 11/02/1945     12/07/2004   19/04/2007   2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   7. 52149/07 30/09/2007 Yuliya Alekseyevna GRIBANOVA 15/10/1969 Telyatyev Igor Yuryevich Arkhangelsk 12/07/2004   19/04/2007   2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   8. 52159/07 30/09/2007 Nikolay Valentinovich LUKINSKIY 07/04/1959 Telyatyev Igor Yuryevich Arkhangelsk 12/07/2004   19/04/2007   2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   9. 52809/07 30/09/2007 Mikhail Yevgenyevich TITOV 06/02/1960 Telyatyev Igor Yuryevich Arkhangelsk 09/07/2004   19/04/2007   2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 11 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   10. 53078/07 25/10/2007 Nataliya Aleksandrovna ZVEREVA 18/04/1958     14/05/2005   02/05/2007   1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 19 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   11. 53823/07 15/10/2007 Nadezhda Vladimirovna PROTSENKO 18/09/1952     14/04/2005     03/05/2006     12/11/2007   20/12/2005     07/05/2007     07/12/2007   8 month(s) and 7 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   1 year(s) and 5 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   26 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 12. 54007/07 16/10/2007 Nikolay Nikolayevich ISAYEV 01/12/1947     09/02/2005     13/03/2006   08/07/2005     29/06/2007   5 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 17 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   13 54832/07 30/09/2007 Sergey Ivanovich PECHURKIN 15/01/1959     12/07/2004   19/04/2007   2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   14. 40093/08 26/05/2008 Andrey Viktorovich SLEZHAKOV 02/07/1954     15/11/2006         30/01/2007   30/01/2007         07/06/2007   2 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   4 month(s) and 9 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   15. 6836/09 31/10/2005 Gennadiy Petrovich YUDIN 25/02/1955     08/12/1999     10/05/2005   22/11/2000     16/06/2005   11 month(s) and 15 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   1 month(s) and 7 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   16. 9321/09 02/12/2008 Vladimir Vladimirovich KOSTETSKIY 14/01/1961   Galina Anatolyevna KOSTETSKAYA 25/07/1962     06/04/2005   03/06/2008   3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction