CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s12CB6876 { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA3A61D5F { width:158.44pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 6442/18 Roman Valentinovich KRYLKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   December 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29   January 2018, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr L. Gribov, a lawyer practising in St   Petersburg. The applicant’s 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 LAW Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the civil proceedings is inadmissible. Without going into the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion, the Court finds that the complaint is in any event manifestly ill-founded. The proceedings to which the applicant was a party lasted for less than two years before two court instances and thus they were not excessively long. The applicant was not able to point to any deficiency or delay which had been caused by the national authorities and which could have led to the protraction of the proceedings. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings) The applicant also complained that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings in his civil case. 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 applicant’s 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 this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 21 January 2021.   Liv Tigerstedt   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 6442/18 29/01/2018 Roman Valentinovich KRYLKOV 1961 Gribov Lev Georgiyevich St Petersburg 11/03/2015   22/08/2016   1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 11 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction