CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5DC4CAA1 { width:26.68pt; display:inline-block } .sB237106A { width:192.95pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s59A346EA { width:4.64%; 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 } .sD7DF56A6 { width:11.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1B02AA71 { width:16.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s42EC7385 { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC677650A { width:13.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEF2C0F73 { width:12.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFFB983EF { width:13.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s328051F2 { width:12.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s8E97DE01 { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3C0F3A58 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s976A0DC3 { width:11.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD79B74F { width:16.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sB7C6448F { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7FF1B79C { width:13.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s92370B00 { width:12.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA7DFDF81 { width:13.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC04F2D82 { width:12.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF SILKĀNE AND OTHERS v. LATVIA   (Application no. 70890/13 and 5 others - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   8 June 2017       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Silkāne and Others v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 May 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Latvia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Latvian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article   6   §   1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 7.     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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8.     In the leading case of Veiss v. Latvia, no. 15152/12, 28 January 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 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. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     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.” 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Veiss v. Latvia, no. 15152/12, 28 January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 June 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Karen Reid   Nona Tsotsoria   Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) 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 Levels of jurisdiction Domestic court file number Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros) [1]     70890/13 06/11/2013 Household Tatjana Silkāne 25/01/1956 Valentīna Gordjušina 05/08/1945       19/10/2006   29/09/2015   8 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 11   day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction A42538806 3,000     71499/13 11/11/2013 (3 applicants) Household Aivars Ašmanis 04/12/1949 Rita Ašmane 04/02/1942 Ilze Ašmane 28/04/1973       24/08/2000   09/07/2013   12 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 16   day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction C14057900 10,000     24333/14 21/03/2014 Gunta Rubine 18/06/1950 Rubins Andris Riga 01/09/2006   01/10/2013   7 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 1   day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction C30282506 1,500     35916/14 09/05/2014 Elga Klēģere 10/03/1955 Nikuļceva Inese Riga 07/04/2008   27/03/2014   5 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 21 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction C04252808 1,000     64203/14 18/09/2014 Irēna Šutova 26/09/1945 (The applicant died during the proceedings before the Court; her heir Ingūna Ceplīte has informed the Court of her intention to pursue the application.)     24/02/2005   26/06/2014   9 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 3   day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction C30175205 3,000     16590/15 27/04/2015 Pauls Romanovs 12/04/1973     18/09/2008   27/10/2014   6 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 10   day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction C10086808 1,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.