CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 juillet 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121 July 2009 Svetlana Orlova v. Russia - 4487/04 Judgment 30.7.2009 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of proceedings subject to repeated supervisory review: violation   Facts : The applicant worked as a consultant at the Supreme Court of one of the federal subjects of the Russian Federation. While she was on maternity leave her position was converted to that of an assistant of the president of the Supreme Court. Upon her return she was offered various posts but not the newly created position. She refused the offers and was dismissed. In 2001 she brought court proceedings against her former employer seeking reinstatement in her previous position and the payment of salary arrears and compensation. The case was initially dismissed in 2001. Between 2002 and 2008 it was re-examined five times as a result of remittals for fresh consideration and supervisory-review proceedings. Ultimately, the domestic courts found for the applicant. Law : The domestic courts had examined the case in six rounds of proceedings in total. Although the case had been pending before the courts for only one year and eleven months in all, the proceedings had been delayed by the repeated remittals of the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court either by the appeal or the supervisory-review courts. Thus, the proceedings had been spread over almost seven years. The right to have one’s claim examined within a reasonable time would be devoid of all sense if domestic courts examined a case numerous times, by shifting it from one court to another, even if at the end the accumulated length of proceedings did not appear particularly excessive. Therefore, the fact that in the present case the aggregated length of the proceedings did not appear very long at first glance did not absolve the domestic authorities of their responsibility to account for the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. There had been two major deficiencies in the proceedings at hand. Firstly, in the first three rounds of proceedings the case had been examined by courts which could not be considered impartial and independent. That fact had eventually been acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which in 2005 had quashed the decisions adopted in the applicant’s case and had referred the case to a court situated in a different region. It was to be noted that from the beginning of the proceedings the applicant had lodged several requests to that effect with the Supreme Court, but to no avail. After the case had been transferred, it was examined in three further rounds, in particular, because the first-instance court had not implemented the instructions of the higher court. In sum, the failure of the domestic courts to promptly refer the applicant’s case to an independent and impartial court and the repeated referrals of the case from one court to another had resulted in significant delays. The applicant had been in a particularly vulnerable position since she had been dismissed while on maternity leave. Therefore, special diligence had been required from the domestic courts in the examination of her claims against her employer. Accordingly, the length of the proceedings had been excessive. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 2,100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Markin v. Russia , no. 59502/00, Information Note no. 67).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes