[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF PANTELEEVA v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 31780/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5
July 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention.
In the case of Panteleeva v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M.
Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr M. Villiger,
judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 31780/02) against Ukraine
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, Ms Anna Nikolayevna Panteleeva (“the
applicant”), on 31 July 2002.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
- On
30 May 2006 the Court
decided to communicate the applicant's complaints concerning the
length of the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect to
the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at
the same time.
- In
accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention, the
Russian Government were invited to exercise their right to intervene
in the proceedings, but they declined to do so.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Noginsk, the Russian
Federation.
- The applicant owns an apartment in Simpheropil
(Ukraine), in which she has never resided. In 1994 the applicant
rented this apartment to a certain Ms N., who let Ms T., to
move into the apartment in her stead. The applicant has
unsuccessfully tried to secure Ms T.'s conviction for fraud and
wrongful appropriation of her property. In 2002 Ms N. was
convicted of several crimes, including fraud against Ms T.
A. First set of civil proceedings
- In
December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for eviction
of Ms T. These proceedings ended on 28 November 1997, when
the court decided to leave the applicant's submissions without
consideration. This decision was not appealed against and became
final.
B. Second set of civil proceedings
- On
2 December 1997 Ms T. instituted civil proceedings in the
Zaliznychny District Court of Simpheropil (“the District
Court”; Залізничний
районний суд
м. Сімферополя)
against the applicant, claiming that the latter had sold her the
impugned apartment through Ms N. and seeking to be declared its
lawful owner.
- On
24 February 1998 the applicant lodged a counter-claim, seeking
Ms T.'s eviction and various compensations. Subsequently, the
applicant amended her claims twice.
- Between
February 1998 and October 2001 the District Court scheduled
sixteen hearings. Eight of them were adjourned at Ms T.'s
requests or on account of her absences. Two other adjournments were
attributable to the applicant (an absence and a request). No hearings
were scheduled between 12 May 1999 and 12 December 2000
as the District Court had delegated the questioning of the applicant
to the Noginsk City Court (the Russian Federation) and was waiting
for its response.
- On
3 October 2001 the District Court dismissed Ms T.'s claims,
ordered her eviction and partly allowed the applicant's compensation
claims, having awarded her 3,270.96 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH).
Both parties lodged appeals.
- On
18 February 2002 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (the “Court of
Appeal”; Апеляційний
суд Автономної
Республіки
Крим) quashed the judgment of
3 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh
consideration.
- In
March 2002 – December 2005 the District Court
scheduled seven hearings, none of them being adjourned on account of
the applicant's conduct. Between February 2003 and November 2005
no hearings were scheduled.
- On
6 December 2005 the District Court ordered Ms T.'s
eviction and partly allowed the applicant's compensation claims,
having awarded her UAH 13,919.90.
On 26 December 2005 Ms T. lodged an appeal.
- On 1 February 2006
the Court of Appeal returned the case-file to the District Court for
rectification of errors.
- On 22 March 2006
the District Court rectified the errors and sent the case-file to the
Court of Appeal.
- On
12 July 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms T.'s
appeal. There is no information on whether any party lodged an appeal
in cassation.
- The
applicant claims that the judgment remains unenforced to the present
date, however, she did not provide any documents in evidence that
enforcement proceedings are pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE LENGTH OF THE SECOND SET OF PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained that the length of the second set of proceedings
had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 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...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 2 December 1997
and lasted through 12 July 2006, for eight years and seven
months, during which period the matter was considered by two levels
of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- 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, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court notes that the complexity of the case and the applicant's
conduct alone cannot explain the overall length of the proceedings
and finds that a number of delays (remittals of the case for a fresh
consideration and prolonged periods of inactivity) are attributable
to the Government.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see, among other authorities, Frydlender, cited above;
Smirnova v. Ukraine, no. 36655/02, 8 November 2005
and Ogurtsova v. Ukraine, no. 12803/02, 1 February
2007).
- Having examined all the material submitted to it, the
Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in
the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the
Court considers that in the instant case the length of the
proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of
Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that she had no effective remedies for
her complaint concerning excessive length of the proceedings. She
relied on Article 13 of the Convention.
- The
Government considered that Article 13 was not applicable to the
circumstances of the case as the applicant had not made out an
arguable claim under Article 6 § 1.
- The
Court refers to its findings in paragraphs 22 and 26 above and notes
that this complaint is linked to the applicant's complaint under
Article 6 § 1 and must also be declared
admissible.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI). The Government did not name any such remedy available to
the applicant.
- 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 her right to have her case heard within a reasonable time,
as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Efimenko v.
Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 64, 18 July 2006).
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- In addition, the applicant complained under Article 2
of the Convention about her stress and anxiety; under Article 6 § 1
about partiality of the courts and about the unreasonable length of
the first set of proceedings; under Article 8 about infringement
of her right to have private housing and to respect of her honour and
dignity; under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the
unlawful occupation, inability to sell or rent out her apartment; and
under Article 7 § 2 of the Convention about her
inability to secure the conviction of Ms T. and Ms N.
Finally, the applicant complained that her children's Convention
rights were infringed on account of the same facts and invoked
Articles 1 and 17 of the Convention without additional
specification.
- Having
carefully considered the applicant's submissions in the light of all
the material in its possession, the Court finds that, insofar as the
matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose
any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in
the Convention.
- It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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
- The
applicant claimed 2,178,400 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage sustained by her and her children.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- 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 considers that the applicant must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it
awards her EUR 2,800 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any separate claim under this head; the
Court therefore makes no award in this respect.
C. Default interest
- 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
- Declares the complaints concerning the excessive
length of the second set of proceedings and lack of effective
remedies in this respect admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,800
(two thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent
State 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer
Lorenzen
Registrar President
