EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KUZIN v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 22118/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 9.VI.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 Kuzin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 22118/02) 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 Sergey Kuzin
("the applicant"), on 12 May 2002.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 30 October 2003 the Court decided to communicate the
application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29
з 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility. On 7 September
2004 the Court requested the Government to submit additional
observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow.
First set of proceedings
5. On 15 June 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against
four publishing houses seeking recognition of his copyright and an
award of damages. The claim was lodged with the Ostankinskiy
District Court of Moscow.
6. On 5 November 1998 the claim was rejected on the ground
that, according to the rules governing jurisdiction, it should
have been filed with another court. On 15 November 1998 the
applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.
7. The Moscow City Court on 10 December 1998 quashed the ruling
of 5 November 1998 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy
District Court for consideration on the merits.
8. On 22 April 1999 the Ostankinskiy District Court ruled that
the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court of
Moscow. On 5 May 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the
Moscow City Court.
9. The Moscow City Court on 30 July 1999 quashed the ruling of
22 April 1999 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District
Court for consideration on the merits.
10. On 11 November 1999 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 6
December 1999. However, the preparation of the case was initially
extended to 31 January 2000 because of the defendants' failure to
appear and subsequently extended to 14 February 2000 because of
the judge's holiday leave.
11. On 14 February 2000 a hearing on the merits was fixed for
16 March 2000. That hearing did not take place because the case
had been transferred to another judge.
12. On 10 August 2000 a hearing was fixed for 21 August 2000.
It was initially postponed to 20 November 2000 because the judge
was engaged in unrelated proceedings, and then to 18 December 2000
because of the defendants' failure to appear.
13. The Ostankinskiy District Court on 18 December 2000 again
ruled that the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District
Court. On 12 February 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with
the Moscow City Court.
14. The Moscow City Court on 14 March 2001 quashed the ruling
of 18 December 2000 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy
District Court for consideration on the merits.
15. On 27 August 2001 a hearing on the merits was fixed for 29
November 2001. However, it was first postponed to 28 December 2001
and then to 4 January 2002 because the judge was engaged in
unrelated proceedings.
16. On 4 January 2002 the hearing was postponed to 7 February
2002 because of the parties' failure to appear. The applicant did
not appear on account of illness.
17. On 7 February 2002 the applicant's claim was left without
consideration on account of his second failure to appear at the
hearing.
18. The Ostankinskiy District Court on 2 September 2002 quashed
its ruling of 7 February 2002 on the grounds that the applicant
had not been notified about the hearing in due course. The court
fixed a new hearing on the merits for 23 September 2002. It
appears that the hearing did not take place.
19. On 21 October 2002 the applicant received notification that
the hearing was fixed for 5 November 2002. The applicant could not
appear on account of his illness and informed the court
accordingly.
20. On an unspecified date the case was transferred to another
judge, on account of the dismissal of the judge who had been
dealing with the case. A preliminary hearing was fixed for 17
April 2003.
21. The applicant attended the hearing on the last mentioned
date. However, the judge informed him that she did not have his
case file and did not know where it was. Following an unsuccessful
two-hour search for the case file the applicant was advised to
leave. It later transpired that one of the clerks in the court's
registry was in possession of the case file as he had been
preparing a reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant.
22. On 24 June 2003 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 18
August 2003. However, preparation of the case was extended to 22
September 2003 because of the judge's sick leave.
23. On 22 September 2003 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 23
October 2003.
24. On 23 October 2003 the applicant's claims against each
defendant were divided into four different sets of proceedings.
Hearings on the merits of all four claims were fixed for 26
December 2003.
25. The Ostankinskiy District Court partially granted the
applicant's claim against the first defendant on 26 December 2003.
As the court received no confirmation that the other defendants
had been properly notified of the hearings, the hearings on the
claims against them were postponed to 30 January 2004, 4 and 5
February 2004. By three judgments delivered on the aforementioned
dates, the court partially granted the applicant's claims. The
judgments were not appealed against and entered into force.
Second set of proceedings
26. On 27 January 2002 the applicant filed two applications
with the Supreme Court of Russia and the Moscow City Court
respectively, seeking authorisation to study case files related to
previously lodged applications for supervisory review of certain
judgments concerning his civil claims. The applications were
refused on the ground that the legislation in force did not
provide for the possibility of studying case files related to
applications for supervisory review, since it was an extraordinary
remedy. However, a reasoned reply would be sent to the applicant
after delivery of a decision.
27. On 3 March 2002 the applicant filed two complaints
concerning the refusals with the court. His complaints were
rejected by a final ruling of the Moscow City Court of 14 June
2002.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
28. The applicant complained that the length of the first set
of 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..."
29. The period to be taken into consideration began on 15 June
1998 and ended on 5 February 2004, when the last judgment
concerning the applicant's claim was delivered. It thus lasted 5
years, 7 months and 20 days.
A. Admissibility
30. In their first submissions before the Court the Government
maintained that the complaint was premature because the
proceedings were still pending.
31. Leaving aside the fact that the proceedings have now come
to an end, the Court recalls that according to the Convention
organs' constant case-law, complaints concerning length of
procedure may be lodged before the final termination of the
proceedings in question (see, e.g., Todorov v. Bulgaria (dec.),
No. 39832/98, 6 November 2003).
32. The Court finds 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
33. The Government submitted that the delays in the examination
of the applicant's claims were caused by the defendants' failure
to appear at the hearings, for which the authorities could not be
held responsible. Other delays had been caused by the judges'
participation in unrelated proceedings and the transfer of the
case from one judge to another.
34. The applicant contested the Government's statement. He
contended that the civil proceedings were unreasonably long
because the domestic courts had failed to deal with his claims
diligently.
35. 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 criteria established by its
case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of
the applicant and of 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).
36. The Court considers that the case was not particularly
difficult to determine. Consequently, it takes the view that an
overall period of more than five and a half years in one court
instance could not, in itself, be deemed to satisfy the
"reasonable time" requirement in Article 6 з 1 of the Convention.
37. As regards the conduct of the applicant and the defendants
the Court notes that between 15 June 1998 and 26 December 2003 no
hearing on the merits of the applicant's claims was held. During
this period the preliminary hearing fixed for 6 December 1999 was
postponed for about two months because of the defendants' failure
to appear. For the same reason the hearing on the merits fixed for
20 November 2000 was postponed for about one month. The hearing
fixed for 4 January 2002 was also postponed for about one month on
account of the parties' failure to appear, which in the
applicant's case was caused by illness. In these circumstances the
Court does not find it established that the applicant's conduct
delayed the proceedings in any significant way.
38. As regards the conduct of the authorities the Court recalls
that the case was repeatedly adjourned due to the judges'
participation in other proceedings and the transfer of the case
from one judge to another. Furthermore, delays occurred while the
national courts settled disputes of jurisdiction. 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). In these circumstances the Court finds
that the significant delays which occurred in the present case are
attributable to the State.
39. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the
Court to conclude that the applicant's case was not heard 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
40. The applicant further complained of the fact that there was
no court in Russia to which application could be made to complain
of the excessive length of proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of
the Convention, which provides:
"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."
A. Admissibility
41. The Court finds that this complaint is not manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention. No
other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
42. The Government submitted that the applicant had had an
effective remedy against the length of proceedings in the present
case. In particular, after examining the applicant's complaints
the Moscow City Court quashed a number of rulings by the
Ostankinskiy District Court which had left the applicant's claim
without consideration. They further contended that the
Ostankinskiy District Court had taken appropriate measures to
examine the applicant's claim, which had resulted in favourable
judgments.
43. The applicant challenged the Government's arguments. He
submitted that his complaints against the aforementioned rulings
had been directed at having his claims considered by a proper
court, and that quashing of the rulings had been of no relevance
to the length of the proceedings. He further contended that the
Government had failed to indicate an effective remedy that he had
had at his disposal.
44. 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, No. 30210/96, з 156, ECHR
2000-XI). Furthermore, the Court recalls that an effective remedy
required by Article 13 of the Convention is intended to be capable
of either expediting the proceedings or providing the applicant
with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see
{Kudla} v. Poland cited above, зз 157 - 159).
45. The Court finds that the quashing of rulings on various
procedural issues following complaints by the applicant was
irrelevant for, let alone capable of, expediting the proceedings
or providing him with redress for the delays occurred.
Furthermore, the favourable outcome of the proceedings as such
cannot be considered to constitute adequate redress for their
length (see, mutatis mutandis, Byrn v. Denmark, No. 13156/87,
Commission decision of 1 July 1992, Decisions and Reports (DR) 74,
p. 5). The Court notes that the Government did not indicate any
other 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).
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. The applicant made a number of complaints in respect of the
second set of proceedings. He complained under Articles 9 and 10
of the Convention about the refusal to grant him an opportunity to
study case files. Invoking Articles 6 з 1 and 13 of the
Convention, he also complained about the dismissal of his
subsequent complaints.
48. However, in the light of all the material in its
possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within
its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in
the Convention or its Protocols.
49. It follows that this part of the application must be
declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to
Article 35 зз 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
50. 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
51. The applicant claimed 6,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for
non-pecuniary damage.
52. The Government considered this claim excessive and
unreasonable. They noted that, in contrast to the Kormacheva case
where the Court had awarded EUR 3,000 (see Kormacheva v. Russia,
cited above, зз 66 - 71), the proceedings in the present case did
not concern matters of vital importance for the applicant, lengthy
consideration of which could seriously aggravate his situation.
53. The Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress,
anxiety and frustration caused by the unreasonable length of the
proceedings. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court awards EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
54. The applicant also claimed EUR 200 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The
applicant did not adduce any invoices supporting the claim. He
explained that the expenses consisted of payment for postal, fax
and e-mail services, printing and copying of documents.
55. The Government made no specific comment in this regard.
56. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled
to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it
has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the
above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum
of EUR 200 covering costs under all heads.
C. Default interest
57. 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 length of the first
set of proceedings and the lack 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, the following
amounts:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in compensation for
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the
date of settlement;
(ii) EUR 200 (two hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months
until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amounts 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 claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
|
