Право
Навигация

 

Реклама




 

 

Ресурсы в тему

 

Реклама

Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси

 

СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости

 

Рейтинг@Mail.ru


Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)

 

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 22.09.2005 ДЕЛО ВАСЯГИН (VASYAGIN) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад

                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                      CASE OF VASYAGIN v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 75475/01)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 22.IX.2005)
   
   --------------------------------
       <*>  This  judgment will become final in the circumstances  set
   out  in  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention. It may  be  subject  to
   editorial revision.
   
       In the case of Vasyagin v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mr P. Lorenzen,
       Mrs N. {Vajic} <*>,
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mr K. Hajiyev,
       Mr D. Spielmann, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
                                   
                               PROCEDURE
                                   
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 75475/01) against
   the  Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article  34  of
   the  Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and  Fundamental
   Freedoms   ("the  Convention")  by  a  Russian  national,  Vladimir
   Petrovich Vasyagin ("the applicant"), on 6 July 2001.
       2.  The  Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
   by  Mr  P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation  at
   the European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  On  13  February 2004 the Court decided to communicate  the
   application. Applying Article 29 з 3 of the Convention, it  decided
   to  rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at  the
   same time.
                                   
                               THE FACTS
                                   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
                                   
       1. Proceedings prior to 5 May 1998 (the date of the entry
          into force of the Convention in respect of Russia)
                                   
       4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow.  He  is
   retired.
       5. On 5 October 1993 the applicant bought a motorbike, produced
   in  Belarus.  The  motorbike was sold by a Russian  dealer  company
   under  a  service warranty. The next day the motorbike got  out  of
   order.  The  service  centre,  indicated  by  the  dealer  company,
   refused to repair the motorbike.
       6.  On  2 December 1993 the applicant brought an action against
   four  defendants: the dealer company, the factory  having  produced
   the  motorbike,  based  in  Belarus, the service  centre,  and  the
   Moscow  Bureau  of  Technical Expertise.  On  4  October  1994  the
   Meshchanskiy  District Court of Moscow ordered the  dealer  company
   to  pay  damages  to the applicant. The defendant appealed.  On  28
   March  1995 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment and remitted
   the case to the first instance court.
       7. In 1995 - 1997 hearings were adjourned on five occasions due
   to  both parties' failure to appear, on two occasions - due to  the
   defendant's  failure to appear, and on six occasions -  because  of
   the  judge  having  been  busy with other  cases.  Finally,  on  12
   November   1997  the  Meshchanskiy  District  Court   severed   the
   applicant's  claims against the service centre. At  the  same  time
   the  court  dismissed  the applicant's claims  against  the  dealer
   company.  On  12  January 1998 the Moscow City  Court  upheld  this
   judgment. The proceedings against the service centre continued.
                                   
                    2. Proceedings after 5 May 1998
                                   
       8.  In  the proceedings against the service centre no  hearings
   were  held  between  12  January 1998 and 12  April  1999.  In  the
   following  months  the  examination of the case  was  adjourned  on
   three occasions due to the defendant's failure to appear.
       9.  By  a default judgment of 20 December 1999 the Meshchanskiy
   District  Court  held  against  the  service  centre  awarding  the
   applicant  damages in the amount of 261,690 Russian roubles  (RUR).
   Since  no  appeal  followed within the time-limits  established  by
   law,  on  31  December 1999 the judgment became  final.  The  court
   issued   an   execution   warrant  and   opened   the   enforcement
   proceedings.
       10.  On 6 February 2000 the defendant lodged an appeal seeking,
   inter  alia, to restore the time-limits allowed for the appeal.  On
   9  March  2003  the  court decided to restore the  time-limits  and
   accepted the statement of appeal for examination on the merits.  In
   the  meantime RUR 30,267 were recovered from the service centre  on
   the  account of the amount due to the applicant under the  judgment
   of 20 December 1999.
       11.  By  the  decision  of 18 May 2000 the  Moscow  City  Court
   quashed  the judgment of 20 December 1999, stating that  the  first
   instance  court  had failed to properly notify the defendant  about
   the  hearings.  The case was remitted to the first  instance  court
   for new examination.
       12.  By  a  judgment of 20 June 2000 the Meshchanskiy  District
   Court  dismissed the applicant's action against the service centre.
   The  court  also  ordered  the applicant to  reimburse  the  amount
   recovered  from the service centre pursuant to the judgment  of  20
   December 1999.
       13.  On  26 July 2000 the Public Prosecutor of the Meshchanskiy
   District  of Moscow lodged with the Moscow City Court an appeal  on
   behalf  of  the  applicant. On 12 September 2000  the  Moscow  City
   Court  quashed the decision of 20 June 2000 and remitted  the  case
   to the first instance.
       14. After the remittal of the case, the proceedings were stayed
   for  a  certain period of time. Within this period higher  judicial
   authorities were examining the materials of the case-file  for  the
   purpose  of  bringing  a  supervisory  review  appeal  against  the
   decision  of  12  September 2000. However,  no  supervisory  review
   proceedings followed.
       15. The first hearing on the merits was scheduled for 2 October
   2001.  However, on this date the court decided to adjourn the  case
   for  two  months due to the plaintiff's failure to appear.  In  the
   subsequent months the examination of the case was adjourned on  six
   occasions  due to the defendants' failure to appear or the  absence
   either  of  the  presiding judge (adjourned from 27  November  2001
   until  29  January 2002) or the lay judges (adjourned from  20  May
   2002 until 26 June 2002).
       16.  In a letter of 7 February 2001, the Vice-President of  the
   Moscow  City  Court  informed  the President  of  the  Meshchanskiy
   District  Court  that  the applicant's claim against  the  producer
   factory remained unresolved since 1995.
       17.  On  3 October 2002 the first instance court, by a  default
   judgment,  satisfied  the applicant's claim  against  the  producer
   factory and rejected his claim against the dealer company.
       18. The producer factory appealed against this judgment. On  28
   January  2003  the  Moscow City Court quashed  the  judgment  of  3
   October 2002 and remitted the case to the first instance.
       19.  In  the  following months the case was  adjourned  several
   times.  Thus, on 16 April 2003 the case was adjourned  due  to  the
   defendant's  failure to appear. On 1 July 2003 the court  adjourned
   the  case,  ordering the plaintiff (the applicant) to  clarify  his
   claims,  in particular, to indicate the amounts of damages  claimed
   from  each  defendant.  On 4 August 2003  the  case  was  adjourned
   because of the judge having been busy with another case.
       20. In August 2003 the applicant complained about the length of
   proceedings  to  the  Moscow City Court. In a reply  letter  of  30
   September  2003  the  Vice-President  of  the  Moscow  City   Court
   acknowledged  that since 1993 the dispute remained unresolved.  The
   Vice-President reassured the applicant that the Moscow  City  Court
   would take charge of this case.
       21.  On  3 September 2003 the applicant requested the court  to
   adjourn the next hearing because of his absence from Moscow at  the
   relevant  dates. On 29 September 2003 the case was adjourned  until
   31 October 2003.
       22.  On 31 October 2003 the first instance court dismissed  the
   applicant's complaints against the service centre and the  producer
   factory.  The  court found that, although the name and  address  of
   the  service centre had been indicated by the dealer company in the
   guarantee  slip, there existed no contract imposing  an  obligation
   on  the service centre to repair defective goods sold by the dealer
   company.  As to the producer factory, based in Belarus,  the  court
   found that under the applicable Belarus law the producer could  not
   have  been  held liable directly before the consumer of the  goods.
   On 20 February 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld this decision.
                                   
                       II. Relevant domestic law
                                   
       23.  Article  282 of the Code of Civil Procedure  of  1964  (in
   force  at the material time) provides that the first instance court
   decision  on  the  merits  of  the case  can  be  appealed  against
   (обжалованы  в  кассационном  порядке)  by  the  parties  or  other
   participants of the proceedings.
                                   
                                THE LAW
                                   
                I. Alleged violation of Articles 6 з 1
                       and 13 of the Convention
                                   
       24.  The  applicant  complained about the  length  of  domestic
   proceedings.  He also complained, in substance, about  the  absence
   of  effective  domestic remedies in this respect.  The  applicant's
   complaints fall to be examined under Articles 6 з 1 and 13  of  the
   Convention, which read, insofar as relevant, as follows:
       Article 6
       "In  the  determination of his civil rights and obligations...,
   everyone  is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable  time  by
   [a]... tribunal..."
       Article 13
       "Everyone  whose  rights and freedoms as  set  forth  in  [the]
   Convention  are  violated shall have an effective remedy  before  a
   national  authority  notwithstanding that the  violation  has  been
   committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
       25.  The Government contested the applicant's submissions. They
   indicated  that the length of the proceedings in the  present  case
   could  be  explained  by "systematic failures  of  the  parties  to
   attend  the  hearings", the complexity of the case, as well  as  by
   the  fact  that  one  of  the defendants  was  a  foreign  company.
   Therefore,   in  the  Government's  submissions,  the   applicant's
   complaint under Article 6 з 1 was manifestly ill-founded.
       26.   As  regards  the  complaint  under  Article  13  of   the
   Convention,  the  Government  argued that  the  applicant  had  had
   effective  remedies at his disposal, and, moreover, had  used  them
   more  than once. Article 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as  in
   force at the relevant time, provided that any procedural act  of  a
   judge  could be appealed against. The Government submitted that  on
   several  occasions  the applicant had successfully  challenged  the
   judgments in his case before higher-instance courts, making use  of
   this  provision. Therefore, this complaint was also manifestly-ill-
   founded.
       27. The applicant, in reply, maintained his complaints.
       28.  The  Court  observes that the proceedings commenced  on  2
   December  1993  and  ended on 20 February 2004. Thus,  the  overall
   length  of the proceedings at issue was ten years, two months,  and
   eighteen  days.  The  Court notes that part  of  this  period  lies
   outside   the   Court's  jurisdiction  ratione  temporis   as   the
   Convention  came into force in respect of Russia  on  5  May  1998.
   However,  when deciding whether the total length of the proceedings
   was "reasonable" regards must be had to the state of the case on  5
   May  1998  (see  Sawicka v. Poland, No. 37645/97, зз  42  -  43,  1
   October  2002).  After the entry into force of the Convention  with
   respect  to  Russia the proceedings lasted five years, nine  months
   and fifteen days.
                                   
                           A. Admissibility
                                   
       29.  The  Court observes that the applicant's complaints  about
   the  length of proceedings and absence of domestic remedies in this
   respect  are  not  manifestly ill-founded  within  the  meaning  of
   Article  35 з 3 of the Convention. It further notes that  they  are
   not  inadmissible  on  any other grounds. They  must  therefore  be
   declared admissible.
                                   
                               B. Merits
                                   
                  1. Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
                                   
       30.  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  applicant  and  the
   relevant  authorities and what was at stake for  the  applicant  in
   the  dispute  (see,  among  many other authorities,  Frydlender  v.
   France [GC], No. 30979/96, з 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
       31.  As  to  the  complexity of the  present  case,  the  Court
   observes that the dispute was a relatively simple one and  did  not
   involve complex factual or legal analysis: the domestic courts  had
   to  decide  which  one  of  the three co-defendants  -  the  dealer
   company,  the  service centre or the producer -  should  have  been
   held  liable  for  the  defects of the  motorbike,  bought  by  the
   applicant. It is true that one of the co-defendants, the  producer,
   was  a  legal  entity  registered in Belarus.  However,  this  fact
   cannot explain why the case required ten years of examination.
       32. As to the conduct of the parties, the Court notes that by 5
   May  1998 the proceedings had lasted more than four years and  five
   months.  The  case  had  been examined in  two  instances  and  had
   reached an advanced stage in the proceedings. However, it took  the
   domestic  courts another five years, nine months and  fifteen  days
   to  give a final answer to the applicant's case. Within this period
   the  hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request or  because
   of  his failure to appear three times, for an overall period of six
   months  and  eight days. The rest of the length is attributable  to
   the  State authorities or the defendant's failure to appear at  the
   hearings.  Thus,  the delay between 20 December 1999  and  20  June
   2000  was  due  to  the  district court's  failure  to  notify  the
   defendant  about the hearing. Further, the courts held no  hearings
   between  12  January  1998  and  12  April  1999,  and  between  12
   September  2000 and 2 October 2001. The Government did not  present
   any  plausible explanation for these periods of inactivity. In  the
   following period the case was adjourned on three occasions  due  to
   the  judges' participation in other proceedings and the absence  of
   lay  judges.  In  this respect the Court recalls  that  it  is  the
   States' duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way  that
   their  courts can meet the requirement of Article 6 з 1  (see  Muti
   v.  Italy,  judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A No. 281-C,  з  15).
   Therefore,  counting  from  5  May 1998,  the  State  may  be  held
   responsible for an overall delay of two years, ten months and  four
   days.
       33. Finally, the Court notes that whereas the subject-matter of
   the  civil dispute at issue may not have been of crucial importance
   to  the applicant, it nevertheless represented a certain value  for
   him, having in mind, in particular, the fact that the applicant  is
   a pensioner.
       34. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers
   that  the  length of the proceedings was excessive  and  failed  to
   meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
       35. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 з 1 of the
   Convention.
                                   
                    2. Article 13 of the Convention
                                   
       36.  The  Court  reiterates  that  Article  13  guarantees   an
   effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged  breach
   of  the  requirement under Article 6 з 1 to hear a  case  within  a
   reasonable time (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96,  з  156,
   ECHR 2000-XI).
       37.  In their submissions the Government relied on Article  282
   of  the  Code of Civil Procedure, as providing an effective  remedy
   against  the delays in the proceedings. The Court notes  that  this
   article deals with the appeals against decisions of a judge on  the
   merits  of the case. The Government did not explain how the  appeal
   on  the merits of the case could have expedited the proceedings  or
   how  the  applicant could have obtained relief - either  preventive
   or   compensatory  -  by  having  recourse  to  a  higher  judicial
   authority  on  the subject-matter of the case. It  notes  that  the
   Government  did  not indicate any other remedy that  could  enforce
   her right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" as guaranteed  by
   Article 6 з 1 of the Convention.
       38.  Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present  case
   there  has  been  a  violation of Article 13 of the  Convention  on
   account  of  the  lack of a remedy under domestic law  whereby  the
   applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to  have
   his case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article  6
   з 1 of the Convention.
                                   
            II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
                                   
       39. 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."
       40.   After  the  communication  of  the  application  to   the
   respondent  Government, the applicant was  invited  to  submit  his
   claims  for  just satisfaction under Article 41 of the  Convention.
   However, he failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court considers  that
   there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
                                   
               FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
                                   
       1. Declares the application admissible;
       2.  Holds  unanimously  that there  has  been  a  violation  of
   Articles 6 з 1 and 13 of the Convention;
       3. Decides to make no award under Article 41 of the Convention.
   
       Done  in English, and notified in writing on 22 September 2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
                                                                      
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                             President
                                                                      
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN
                                                             Registrar
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости


Реклама

Новости сайта Тюрьма


Hosted by uCoz