FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF VASYLIV v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 8008/05)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 January 2011

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

In the case of Vasyliv v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Rait Maruste, President,
	Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
	Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 8008/05) 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 Ukrainian national, Ms Yevdokiya Grygorivna Vasyliv (“the applicant”), on 8 February 2005.
2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
3.  On 24 November 2009 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol no. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Stryy, the Lviv Region.
1.  First set of proceedings
5.  On 18 March 2004 the applicant lodged a claim with the Stryy Court against the State Social Protection Department and the State Pension Fund for recovery of a yearly allowance, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for re-calculation of her pension.
6.  On 23 June 2004 the Stryy Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. On 12 August 2004 the Stryy Court rejected the applicant’s request for interpretation of the judgment.
7.  On 4 October 2004 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 23 June 2004 and remitted the case for new consideration.
8.  On 28 October 2004 the parties appealed in cassation. The applicant had to re-lodge her appeal in cassation as she had initially failed to comply with procedural requirements.
9.  On 2 March 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the case for consideration to the Higher Administrative Court.
10.  On 11 February 2009 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the parties’ appeals in cassation.
11.  On 1 April 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for extraordinary review of the decision of 11 February 2009.
12.  The case is currently pending before the first-instance court.
13.  In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court and court of appeal there were seventeen hearings held. The applicant supplemented her claims on two occasions. She lodged requests for rectification of the hearing records, for studying the case-file, for obtaining additional evidence and for interpretation of the judgment.
2.  Second set of proceedings
14.  In October 2004 the applicant and her daughter instituted defamation proceedings before the Stryy Court against the State Pension Fund and S., a private person.
15.  On 1 December 2004 the Stryy Court left the claim without examination for the claimants’ failure to substantiate it and to pay the court fee.
16.  On 28 February 2005 and 10 September 2007, respectively, the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal and the Khmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal (acting as a court of cassation) upheld the decision of 1 December 2004.
3.  Third set of proceedings
17.  In December 2004 the applicant and two other persons lodged with the Lychakiv Court an administrative claim against the Lviv Regional State Administration, alleging incorrect calculation of their pension and unlawfulness of the claim for debts issued by the local gas supplying company.
18.  On 14 February 2005 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv found that the claim did not fall to be examined in the framework of the administrative procedure and was to be dealt under the rules of civil procedure. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim.
19.  On 18 April 2005 and 23 August 2006 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court, respectively, upheld the decision of 14 February 2005.
20.  On 24 October 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for extraordinary review of the ruling of 23 August 2006.
4.  Fourth set of proceedings
21.  In April 2005 the applicant and her daughter instituted defamation proceedings in the Stryy Court against the State Pension Fund and S., a private person.
22.  On 20 May 2005 the Stryy Court left the claim without examination for the claimants’ failure to pay the court fee.
23.  On 18 July 2005 and 25 October 2007, respectively, the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal and the Khmetlnytsk Regional Court of Appeal (acting as a court of cassation) upheld the decision of 20 May 2005.
THE LAW
I.  THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
24.  The applicant complained that the length of the first set of proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, 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
25.  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
26.  The applicant complained that the length of the first set of the proceedings was excessive.
27.  The Government submitted that the issue examined by the domestic courts was complex in itself and had been also complicated by the applicant’s additional claims. They further maintained that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by lodging requests and appeals often not in accordance with the procedural requirements. The Government admitted that there had been delays caused by the high workload of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the issue was promptly and effectively tackled by the introduction of changes into the Judiciary Act allowing civil cases to be examined in cassation by courts of appeal.
28.  The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 20 March 2004 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted over six years and a half.
29.  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).
30.  Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the proceedings in question concern the determination of the applicant’s right to pension and social security allowance, her main income. They are of obvious importance to the applicant and require the courts to deal with it with particular diligence.
31.  The Court observes that a significant delay of approximately four years and three months was caused by the lengthy examination of the applicant’s appeal in cassation (see paragraphs 8-10 above). The allegedly high workload of the Supreme Court cannot justify it, in particular given the subject-matter of the case. In such circumstances the Court finds that State authorities bear the primary responsibility for the excessive length of the proceedings in the present case.
32.  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 Frydlender, cited above, Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 49-53, 6 September 2005; and Vashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 26864/03, § 50, 26 June 2008).
33.  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 of the Convention.
II.  THE COMPLAINT OF LACK OF EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC REMEDIES
34.  The applicant complained of lack of effective remedies in respect of her complaint concerning the length of the first set of proceedings. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, 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.”
35.  The Government made no comments on this complaint.
36.  The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
37.  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).
38.  Having regard to its well-established case-law on the matter, the Court finds that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings (see Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 64, 18 July 2006).
III.  OTHER COMPLAINTS
39.  The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of unfairness of the proceedings in her case. She also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of lack of access to a court on account of the outcome of the second, third and fourth sets of proceedings. The applicant finally alleged that the State authorities had violated her right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
40.  In the light of the materials in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
41.  It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
42.  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
43.  The applicant claimed 36,250.54 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in respect of pecuniary and EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
44.  The Government contested these claims.
45.  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, it awards the applicant EUR 800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B.  Costs and expenses
46.  The applicant also claimed UAH 60 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and UAH 943 for those incurred before the Court.
47.  The Government submitted that only part of the applicant’s claims was supported by copies of relevant documents. They also contended that the remainder of the claim was not related to the examination of the case by the Court.
48.  The Court notes that the applicant provided relevant supporting documents in respect of the amount of EUR 78 which she had spent for corresponding with the Court and for translation and making copies of the relevant documents. It therefore awards the applicant this amount for costs and expenses.
C.  Default interest
49.  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 under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the length of the first set of proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in that respect admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 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 EUR 800 (eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 78 (seventy-eight euros) for costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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 20 January 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Stephen Phillips	Rait Maruste
	Deputy Registrar	President