FIRST SECTION

CASE OF MESHCHERYAKOV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 24564/04)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

3 February 2011

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Meshcheryakov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Nina Vajić, President,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Khanlar Hajiyev, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 January 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 24564/04) 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 Vladimir Ivanovich Meshcheryakov (“the applicant”), on 2 June 2004.
2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3.  On 28 September 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Tula.
5.  On 1 November 2000 the applicant brought civil proceedings claiming damages from the regional police department.
6.  The hearings scheduled at the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula (“the District Court”) for 17 January and 15 March 2001 did not take place as the judge was involved in different proceedings. The applicant also chose to amend his claims which required their communication to the respondent.
7.  The hearing of 21 June 2001 was adjourned at the respondent’s request to collect certain evidence.
8.  By judgment of 28 June 2001, the District Court awarded the applicant 249,292 Russian roubles (RUR) against the police department. The respondent appealed.
9.  On 13 November 2001 the Tula Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) decided to postpone examination of the appeal pending the outcome of an inquiry initiated by the Supreme Court of Russia with the Constitutional Court of Russia concerning compliance of certain legal provisions with the Constitution.
10.  Following the adoption of a judgment by the Constitutional Court on 19 June 2002, on 13 August 2002 the Regional Court resumed the appeal proceedings.
11.  The appeal hearing of 19 September 2002 did not take place due to the illness of the respondent’s representative.
12.  On 17 October 2002 the Regional Court examined the appeal, set the judgment aside and ordered re-examination of the case.
13.  At the hearings of 27 February and 15 April 2003 the applicant amended his claims. Both hearings were adjourned to enable the respondent to study the amendments.
14.  The hearings of 26 May and 28 August 2003 did not take place due to the respondent’s representative’s involvement in different proceedings and the judge’s illness, respectively.
15.  By judgment of 22 September 2003 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 473,913.33 in respect of unpaid disability allowance for the period from June 1998 to October 2003. The police department was also ordered to pay RUR 14,961.91 per month starting from October 2003 and to adjust that sum on a monthly basis in accordance with the statutory level of minimum wages and the cost of living in the Tula Region.
16.  Neither of the parties challenged the judgment, which became final on 3 October 2003. The enforcement proceedings were opened.
17.  On 5 December 2003 the police department asked the District Court to fix a new time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 22 September 2003.
18.  On 15 December 2003 the District Court rejected their request. The police department appealed, and the applicant requested that the appeal hearing be postponed due to his illness. Two months later the Regional Court quashed the impugned decision and remitted the matter to the first instance.
19.  On 9 March 2004 the District Court granted the request for a new time-limit. The applicant appealed and asked to postpone the appeal hearing due to his counsel’s unavailability. On 27 April 2004 the Regional Court upheld the decision.
20.  By an interim decision of 18 May 2004, the District Court stayed enforcement of the judgment of 22 September 2003. After lodging an appeal, the applicant again asked to postpone the appeal hearing due to his counsel’s unavailability.
21.  On 6 July 2004 the Regional Court set aside the judgment of 22 September 2003 and the decision to stay the enforcement proceedings. A new hearing was required.
22.  On 1 October 2004 the applicant amended his claims.
23.  The hearing of 7 October 2004 did not take place due to the judge’s illness.
24.  In the meantime the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal decision of 6 July 2004. On 11 November 2004 the supervisory instance called up his case and dismissed his application on 5 March 2005.
25.  At the hearings of 26 April and 23 May 2005 the applicant again modified his claims. The respondent requested that the latter hearing be adjourned to verify some evidence. The next hearing of 20 June 2005 had also to be adjourned due to another amendment of his claims by the applicant.
26.  The respondent’s representative did not appear at the hearings scheduled for 6 and 7 July 2005 due to his involvement in different proceedings.
27.  On 11 July 2005 the applicant again changed his claims, following which the hearing was adjourned to collect certain evidence.
28.  On 8 September 2005 the applicant amended his claims.
29.  The hearings of 13 September and 12 October 2005 did not take place as the judge was first ill and then involved in different proceedings.
30.  On 24 October and 16 November 2005 the court granted the parties’ motions for obtaining of certain evidence and sent relevant inquiries.
31.  At the next hearing that took place on 8 February 2006 the applicant again modified his claims.
32.  On 3 March 2006 the District Court awarded the applicant a lump sum of RUR 381,251.97 and ordered the police department to pay him RUR 14,358.03 per month starting from 1 March 2006. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 29 June 2006 and enforced on 4 May 2007.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
33.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was unreasonable. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 6 § 1, the relevant part of 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
34.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint. In particular, they pointed out that it had been open to him to complain to the Judicial Qualifications Board of the Tula Region, challenge the trial court’s decisions for adjournment or claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
35.  The applicant countered alleging that he had in fact unsuccessfully complained to the Judicial Qualifications Board and challenged the adjournment decisions.
36.  The Court reiterates that according to its previous findings, at the time when the applicant brought his application to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 61-62, 29 January 2004; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
37.  It notes that in the present case the Government did not provide any new argument as to whether and how the applicant could obtain effective relief by having recourse to the suggested measures. It was not suggested that these remedies could have expedited the determination of the applicant’s case or provided him with adequate redress of the delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva, cited above, § 61). Nor did the Government supply any example from domestic practice showing that, by using the means in question, it was possible for the applicant to obtain such a relief (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 159, ECHR 2000‑XI).
38.  Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s argument concerning a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
39.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s case had been complex and that he had borne primary responsibility for its length by frequently changing his claims, lodging motions for obtainment of evidence and requesting adjournments.
40.  The applicant maintained his complaint.
41.  The Court observes that the proceedings in the applicant’s case lasted from 1 November 2000 to 29 June 2006. The interval between 11 November 2004 and 5 March 2005 should not be taken into account as during this period the case was examined by the supervisory instance. The aggregate length of the proceedings thus amounts approximately to five years and four months, during which period the applicant’s claims were examined three times at two levels of jurisdiction. The Court finds it possible to include in this period the interval between September and December 2003 when the respondent’s appeal of the judgment had not yet been lodged and the case was not pending before the courts, considering that during this time it was incumbent on the State to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour (see Sokolov v. Russia, no. 3734/02, § 32, 22 September 2005).
42.  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).
43.  The Court considers that even though the applicant’s claims were not characterised by particular complexity, he changed and supplemented them at least on ten occasions throughout the proceedings. It is of the opinion that the task of the courts was rendered more difficult by these factors (see Antonov v. Russia, no. 38020/03, 3 November 2005). The Court further observes that twice the applicant motioned for obtainment of certain evidence which further delayed the proceedings, and on three occasions he asked to postpone an appeal hearing due to his illness or his counsel’s unavailability.
44.  It takes cognisance of the suspension of the appeal proceedings for nine months pending outcome of an inquiry with the Constitutional Court of Russia (see paragraph 9 above) but considers that this measure was undertaken in the interests of a fair resolution of the applicant’s case. The Court observes that, apart from a few occasions when the judge sitting in the case was ill or involved in different proceedings, the authorities did not contribute to their length. The courts did not idle and handled the case with reasonable expedition.
45.  Regard being had to the overall length of the proceedings and the levels of jurisdiction involved, as well as the applicant’s own responsibility for the delays, the Court concludes that the “reasonable time” requirement was not breached in the present case.
46.  There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
47.  The applicant also complained about the outcome of the second round of the proceedings that ended in an appeal decision of 6 July 2004.
48.  The Court recalls that it is not its task to act by calling into question the outcome of the domestic proceedings. The domestic courts are best placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case and for interpreting and applying rules of substantive and procedural law (see Pekinel v. Turkey, no. 9939/02, § 53, 18 March 2008). Therefore, this complaint should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Declares the complaint concerning excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.  Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 February 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	André Wampach	Nina Vajić	Deputy Registrar	President