CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2C7B3542 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0000ff } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   607 30.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SVETLANA ORLOVA v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Svetlana Orlova v. Russia (application no. 4487/04). The case concerned the dispute between the applicant and her former employer for having dismissed her upon her return from maternity leave from the position she occupied previously.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the judicial proceedings in the applicant’s case having lasted for too long.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,100   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Svetlana Orlova, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Maykop, Republic of Adygeya (Russian Federation). She worked at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya (“the Supreme Court of RA”) as a consultant. While she was on maternity leave her position was converted to that of an assistant of the President of the Supreme Court of RA. Upon her return Ms Orlova was offered various posts but not the newly created position. She refused those offers and was dismissed, following which, in July 2001, she brought court proceedings against the Supreme Court of RA asking to be reinstated in her previous position and to be paid outstanding salaries, and compensation for damages.   The case was dismissed initially by the Town Court in August 2001 and finally by the Supreme Court of RA in September 2001. Between November 2002 and May 2008 the case was examined anew five more times as a result of supervisory review proceedings. Ultimately, in a decision which became final on 19 May 2008 the domestic court ordered that Ms Orlova be reinstated in her position and be paid the salaries she would have collected had she not been dismissed from work.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2004 and was examined for admissibility and merits at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) she complained that the courts which had heard her case had not been impartial, that she had been deprived of access to a court and that her claim had not been examined within a reasonable time.   Decision of the Court   The Court observed that the domestic courts examined the case in six rounds of proceedings in total. Although the case was pending before the courts for one year and eleven months in all, the proceedings had been delayed by the repeated referrals of the case for fresh examination to the effect that they had been spread over almost seven years.   Furthermore, in the first three rounds of proceedings the case had been examined by courts which could not be considered impartial and independent. In addition, it had been heard in three more rounds of proceedings. The Court found that 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 in the examination of the case.   The Court noted that the applicant had been in a particularly vulnerable position since she had been dismissed while on maternity leave. Therefore, special diligence had been required by the domestic courts in the examination of Ms Orlova’s claims against her employer, something which the courts had not shown. Accordingly, the Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, in violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.