EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 3734/02)
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 Sokolov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, 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. 3734/02) 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, Mr Mikhail
Aleksandrovich Sokolov ("the applicant"), on 25 December 2001.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
by their Agent, Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 5 January 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
The circumstances of the case
4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Moscow.
1. Labour dispute
5. In July 1996 the applicant sued his former employer, a
private company, for wage arrears and compensation for non-
pecuniary damage.
6. On 31 January and 4 December 1997 the Nikulinskiy District
Court of Moscow issued judgments in the applicant's action which
were subsequently quashed on appeal.
7. The applicant amended his claims seeking reinstatement
because he had been meanwhile dismissed.
8. Between 13 July 1998 and 18 May 1999 the Nikulinskiy
District Court of Moscow listed thirteen hearings, of which the
hearing on 13 July 1998 was adjourned due to the applicant's
absence and eight hearings were adjourned so as to give time to
his former employer to produce additional evidence or to read
materials submitted by the applicant. The hearings of 3 and 18
March 1999 were adjourned due to the employer's absence.
9. On 8 June 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow
allowed the applicant's claim in part.
10. On an unspecified date the applicant complained about the
bailiffs' failure to enforce the judgment of 8 June 1999. On 17
November 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow confirmed
that the bailiffs had failed to comply with the domestic time-
limit for the enforcement of judgments.
11. On 26 November 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the
judgment of 8 June 1999. The judgments remained unenforced.
12. On 14 December 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court
quashed the judgments of 8 June and 26 November 1999 and remitted
the case to a differently composed bench.
13. On 23 January 2001 the President of the Nikulinskiy
District Court assigned the case to a judge.
14. Of nineteen hearings scheduled between 7 February 2001 and
19 December 2002 two hearings were adjourned on the applicant's
request. Six hearings were adjourned due to the defendant's
failure to attend and five hearings were postponed as to give the
defendant time to submit additional evidence. Three hearings were
adjourned because the presiding judge was on leave or was involved
in other proceedings.
15. On 22 January 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow
reinstated the applicant, awarded him the arrears and a partial
compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
16. On 28 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.
2. Enforcement proceedings
17. On 6 March 2003 bailiffs instituted enforcement
proceedings.
18. On 15 April 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow,
upon the bailiff's request, stayed the enforcement proceedings
pending clarification of the judgment of 22 January 2003.
19. The applicant complained to a court that the judgment of 22
January 2003, as upheld on 28 July 2003, had not been enforced. On
13 August 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed
the complaint holding that the enforcement proceedings had been
lawfully stayed.
20. On 4 September 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of
Moscow clarified the judgment of 22 January 2003, as upheld on 28
July 2003, and held that the applicant had to be immediately
reinstated in his previous position. The court resumed the
enforcement proceedings.
21. On 9 February 2004 the employer issued an order reinstating
the applicant in his previous position. On 17 February 2004 the
applicant asked the employer to grant him annual leave for all
years of absence since 1996 and to dismiss him after the leave.
22. On 19 February 2004 the bailiffs asked the court to stay
the enforcement until the applicant would return from his leave.
23. On 14 April 2004 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow
stayed the proceedings until the end of the applicant's leave. The
applicant appealed against that decision on 7 June 2004.
24. On 15 June 2004 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow
disallowed the appeal because the applicant had missed the time-
limit for lodging it.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1
of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings
25. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings
had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement,
provided in Article 6 з 1 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...
everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by
[a]... tribunal..."
A. Admissibility
26. The Government submitted that the applicant was no longer a
victim as the domestic courts had granted his claim.
27. The applicant contested the Government's view.
28. However, even assuming that the partial granting of the
applicant's claim may be regarded as a favourable outcome of the
proceedings, the Court notes that such an outcome was not directly
connected with the length of the proceedings and cannot therefore
be considered, either directly or by implication, as a recognition
of a violation of Article 6 or as reparation for the damage
allegedly caused to the applicant by the length of the proceedings
(see, mutatis mutandis, Byrn v. Denmark, No. 13156/87, Commission
decision of 1 July 1992, Decisions and Reports (DR) 74, p. 5).
Accordingly, the Government's objection should be dismissed.
29. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The period to be taken into consideration
30. The Government submitted that the proceedings had begun in
July 1996 and ended on 28 July 2003 with the final judgment of the
Moscow City Court.
31. The applicant submitted that none of the judgments in his
case, including the one of 28 July 2003, had been enforced. In his
view, the duration of the enforcement should be included in the
overall length.
32. The Court is of the view that the period between July 1996
and 9 February 2004 should be regarded as a whole because it was
incumbent on the State to enforce the judgment once it was issued.
Therefore the periods when the enforcement proceedings were
pending must be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for
the purpose of Article 6 and should be included in the overall
length (see Kravchuk v. Russia (dec.), No. 72749/01, 1 February
2005; Ivanova v. Russia (dec.), No. 74705/02, 1 April 2004). The
Court considers that the proceedings lasted from July 1996 to 9
February 2004 when the employer issued the order reinstating the
applicant in his position.
33. The proceedings therefore lasted more than seven years and
seven months. The Court observes that the period to be taken into
consideration began on 5 May 1998, when the Convention came into
force in respect of Russia. Thus, in this case, at least five
years and nine months fall within the Court's competence ratione
temporis.
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
34. The Government submitted that the delays in the
adjudication of the applicant's action had been caused by the
applicant's systematic failure to attend the hearings. Twenty-
three hearings were adjourned because of his absence. Furthermore,
the applicant amended his claims on several occasions. For that
reason thirteen hearings were adjourned to give the defendant time
to produce new evidence.
35. The applicant averred that he had attended all hearings,
save for one on 13 July 1998 because he had not been summoned for
it. He pointed out that the Government did not indicate any
particular hearing that he had allegedly failed to attend, except
that on 13 July 1998. He could not be blamed for amending his
claims because he had been forced to do so due to his dismissal
and a change in the employer's legal status.
36. 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).
37. The Court considers that the case was not particularly
difficult to determine. Consequently, it takes the view that an
overall period of over seven years could not, in itself, be deemed
to satisfy the "reasonable time" requirement in Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention.
38. The Court notes that the parties disagreed on certain
factual matters concerning the applicant's attendance of the
hearings. As it appears from the list of hearings included in the
Government's memorandum the applicant was present at all hearings,
save for one on 13 July 1998. The Government did not indicate any
other hearing which the applicant had failed to attend. Therefore
the Court finds it established that the applicant had only been
absent on 13 July 1998. Irrespective of the reasons for his
absence, the delay incurred therefrom was negligible. As to the
Government's argument that the applicant contributed to the delay
in the proceedings by amending his claims, the Court reiterates
that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of
the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his
interest (see, mutatis mutandis, {Yagci} <*> and Sargin v. Turkey,
judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A No. 319-A, з 66).
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
39. The Court observes, however, that substantial periods of
inactivity, for which the Government have not submitted any
satisfactory explanation, are attributable to the domestic
authorities. For more than a year, from 26 November 1999 to 14
December 2000, the enforcement proceedings languished with no
apparent progress. The domestic courts admitted that the bailiffs
had been responsible for their failure to enforce the judgment.
The aggregated length of the delays occasioned by the judge's
absence and his participation in unrelated proceedings amounted to
approximately seven months. The Court also finds it peculiar that
in the case which was of no particular complexity so many hearings
had to be adjourned to give time to the defendant to produce
additional evidence (compare with Di Pede v. Italy, judgment of 26
September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
40. The Court furthermore notes that the conduct of the
defendant was one of the reasons for the prolongation of the
proceedings. In the Court's opinion, the domestic authorities
failed to take adequate steps in order to ensure the defendant's
attendance. The defendant defaulted on at least eight occasions
which resulted in a delay of approximately seven months. There is
no indication that the court reacted in any way to that behaviour.
Accordingly, the Court considers that, the domestic courts did not
avail themselves of the measures available to it under national
law to discipline the participants to the proceedings and to
ensure that the case be heard within a reasonable time (see,
mutatis mutandis, {Kusmierek} v. Poland, No. 10675/02, з 65, 21
September 2004).
41. Finally, the Court recalls that employment disputes
generally require particular diligence on the part of the domestic
courts (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A
No. 230-D, p. 39, з 17). Having regard to the overall length of
the proceedings, the Court concludes that the applicant's case was
not examined within a reasonable time. There has accordingly been
a violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
42. The applicant further complained that in Russia there was
no authority to which application could be made to complain of the
excessive length of proceedings. This complaint falls to be
examined under Article 13 of the Convention which reads as
follows:
"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."
43. The Government submitted that on several occasions the
applicant had successfully challenged the judgments before higher-
instance courts.
A. Admissibility
44. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
45. 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). It notes that the Government did not indicate any
remedy that could have expedited the determination of the
applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for delays
that had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, No. 53084/99,
29 January 2004, з 64). In particular, 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.
46. 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.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
47. Lastly, the Court has examined the remainder of the
applicant's complaints as submitted by him. However, having regard
to all the material in its possession, it finds that these
complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the
rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It
follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 зз 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
48. 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."
A. Damage
49. The applicant claimed 930,141.64 Russian roubles (RUR) in
respect of pecuniary and RUR 435,341.12 in respect of non-
pecuniary damage.
50. The Government considered this claim to be excessive and
unreasonable.
51. The Court does not discern any causal link between the
violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore
rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court accepts that the
applicant suffered distress, anxiety and frustration exacerbated
by the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the lack of an
effective remedy for a breach of the requirement to hear his case
within a reasonable time. Making its assessment on an equitable
basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,400 in respect of non-
pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
52. The applicant did not make any claims for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
53. Accordingly, the Court does not award anything under this
head.
C. Default interest
54. The Court considers it appropriate that the default
interest 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. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of
the proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
according to Article 44 з 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,400 (two
thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the
date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months
until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claims for just
satisfaction.
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
|
