ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.09.2005<ДЕЛО ВАСЯГИН (vasyagin) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF VASYAGIN v.
RUSSIA
(Application No. 75475/01)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg,
22.IX.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment
will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vasyagin
v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr P.
Lorenzen,
Mrs N. {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по
тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными
скобками.
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr K.
Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann, 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. 75475/01)
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, Vladimir Petrovich Vasyagin ("the
applicant"), on 6 July 2001.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government")
were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 13 February 2004 the Court
decided to communicate the application. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time.
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the
case
1. Proceedings prior to 5 May 1998 (the date of the entry
into
force of the Convention in respect of Russia)
4. The applicant was born in
1932 and lives in Moscow. He is retired.
5. On 5 October 1993 the
applicant bought a motorbike, produced in Belarus. The motorbike was sold by a
Russian dealer company under a service warranty. The next day the motorbike got
out of order. The service centre, indicated by the dealer company, refused to
repair the motorbike.
6. On 2 December 1993 the applicant brought an
action against four defendants: the dealer company, the factory having produced
the motorbike, based in Belarus, the service centre, and the Moscow Bureau of
Technical Expertise. On 4 October 1994 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow
ordered the dealer company to pay damages to the applicant. The defendant
appealed. On 28 March 1995 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment and
remitted the case to the first instance court.
7. In 1995 - 1997 hearings
were adjourned on five occasions due to both parties" failure to appear, on two
occasions - due to the defendant"s failure to appear, and on six occasions -
because of the judge having been busy with other cases. Finally, on 12 November
1997 the Meshchanskiy District Court severed the applicant"s claims against the
service centre. At the same time the court dismissed the applicant"s claims
against the dealer company. On 12 January 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld this
judgment. The proceedings against the service centre continued.
2.
Proceedings after 5 May 1998
8. In the proceedings against the service
centre no hearings were held between 12 January 1998 and 12 April 1999. In the
following months the examination of the case was adjourned on three occasions
due to the defendant"s failure to appear.
9. By a default judgment of 20
December 1999 the Meshchanskiy District Court held against the service centre
awarding the applicant damages in the amount of 261,690 Russian roubles (RUR).
Since no appeal followed within the time-limits established by law, on 31
December 1999 the judgment became final. The court issued an execution warrant
and opened the enforcement proceedings.
10. On 6 February 2000 the
defendant lodged an appeal seeking, inter alia, to restore the time-limits
allowed for the appeal. On 9 March 2003 the court decided to restore the
time-limits and accepted the statement of appeal for examination on the merits.
In the meantime RUR 30,267 were recovered from the service centre on the account
of the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of 20 December 1999.
11. By the decision of 18 May 2000 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment
of 20 December 1999, stating that the first instance court had failed to
properly notify the defendant about the hearings. The case was remitted to the
first instance court for new examination.
12. By a judgment of 20 June
2000 the Meshchanskiy District Court dismissed the applicant"s action against
the service centre. The court also ordered the applicant to reimburse the amount
recovered from the service centre pursuant to the judgment of 20 December
1999.
13. On 26 July 2000 the Public Prosecutor of the Meshchanskiy
District of Moscow lodged with the Moscow City Court an appeal on behalf of the
applicant. On 12 September 2000 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 20
June 2000 and remitted the case to the first instance.
14. After the
remittal of the case, the proceedings were stayed for a certain period of time.
Within this period higher judicial authorities were examining the materials of
the case-file for the purpose of bringing a supervisory review appeal against
the decision of 12 September 2000. However, no supervisory review proceedings
followed.
15. The first hearing on the merits was scheduled for 2 October
2001. However, on this date the court decided to adjourn the case for two months
due to the plaintiff"s failure to appear. In the subsequent months the
examination of the case was adjourned on six occasions due to the defendants"
failure to appear or the absence either of the presiding judge (adjourned from
27 November 2001 until 29 January 2002) or the lay judges (adjourned from 20 May
2002 until 26 June 2002).
16. In a letter of 7 February 2001, the
Vice-President of the Moscow City Court informed the President of the
Meshchanskiy District Court that the applicant"s claim against the producer
factory remained unresolved since 1995.
17. On 3 October 2002 the first
instance court, by a default judgment, satisfied the applicant"s claim against
the producer factory and rejected his claim against the dealer company.
18. The producer factory appealed against this judgment. On 28 January 2003 the
Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 3 October 2002 and remitted the case
to the first instance.
19. In the following months the case was adjourned
several times. Thus, on 16 April 2003 the case was adjourned due to the
defendant"s failure to appear. On 1 July 2003 the court adjourned the case,
ordering the plaintiff (the applicant) to clarify his claims, in particular, to
indicate the amounts of damages claimed from each defendant. On 4 August 2003
the case was adjourned because of the judge having been busy with another
case.
20. In August 2003 the applicant complained about the length of
proceedings to the Moscow City Court. In a reply letter of 30 September 2003 the
Vice-President of the Moscow City Court acknowledged that since 1993 the dispute
remained unresolved. The Vice-President reassured the applicant that the Moscow
City Court would take charge of this case.
21. On 3 September 2003 the
applicant requested the court to adjourn the next hearing because of his absence
from Moscow at the relevant dates. On 29 September 2003 the case was adjourned
until 31 October 2003.
22. On 31 October 2003 the first instance court
dismissed the applicant"s complaints against the service centre and the producer
factory. The court found that, although the name and address of the service
centre had been indicated by the dealer company in the guarantee slip, there
existed no contract imposing an obligation on the service centre to repair
defective goods sold by the dealer company. As to the producer factory, based in
Belarus, the court found that under the applicable Belarus law the producer
could not have been held liable directly before the consumer of the goods. On 20
February 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld this decision.
II. Relevant
domestic law
23. Article 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964 (in
force at the material time) provides that the first instance court decision on
the merits of the case can be appealed against (обжалованы в
кассационном порядке) by the parties or other participants of
the proceedings.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Articles 6 § 1
and 13 of the Convention
24. The applicant complained about the length of
domestic proceedings. He also complained, in substance, about the absence of
effective domestic remedies in this respect. The applicant"s complaints fall to
be examined under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, which read, insofar
as relevant, as follows:
Article 6
"In the determination of his
civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 13
"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."
25. The
Government contested the applicant"s submissions. They indicated that the length
of the proceedings in the present case could be explained by "systematic
failures of the parties to attend the hearings", the complexity of the case, as
well as by the fact that one of the defendants was a foreign company. Therefore,
in the Government"s submissions, the applicant"s complaint under Article 6 § 1
was manifestly ill-founded.
26. As regards the complaint under Article 13
of the Convention, the Government argued that the applicant had had effective
remedies at his disposal, and, moreover, had used them more than once. Article
282 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the relevant time, provided
that any procedural act of a judge could be appealed against. The Government
submitted that on several occasions the applicant had successfully challenged
the judgments in his case before higher-instance courts, making use of this
provision. Therefore, this complaint was also manifestly-ill-founded.
27.
The applicant, in reply, maintained his complaints.
28. The Court
observes that the proceedings commenced on 2 December 1993 and ended on 20
February 2004. Thus, the overall length of the proceedings at issue was ten
years, two months, and eighteen days. The Court notes that part of this period
lies outside the Court"s jurisdiction ratione temporis as the Convention came
into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998. However, when deciding whether
the total length of the proceedings was "reasonable" regards must be had to the
state of the case on 5 May 1998 (see Sawicka v. Poland, No. 37645/97, §§ 42 -
43, 1 October 2002). After the entry into force of the Convention with respect
to Russia the proceedings lasted five years, nine months and fifteen
days.
A. Admissibility
29. The Court observes that the applicant"s
complaints about the length of proceedings and absence of domestic remedies in
this respect are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §
3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any
other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1.
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
30. 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).
31. As to the complexity of the present case, the Court
observes that the dispute was a relatively simple one and did not involve
complex factual or legal analysis: the domestic courts had to decide which one
of the three co-defendants - the dealer company, the service centre or the
producer - should have been held liable for the defects of the motorbike, bought
by the applicant. It is true that one of the co-defendants, the producer, was a
legal entity registered in Belarus. However, this fact cannot explain why the
case required ten years of examination.
32. As to the conduct of the
parties, the Court notes that by 5 May 1998 the proceedings had lasted more than
four years and five months. The case had been examined in two instances and had
reached an advanced stage in the proceedings. However, it took the domestic
courts another five years, nine months and fifteen days to give a final answer
to the applicant"s case. Within this period the hearings were adjourned at the
applicant"s request or because of his failure to appear three times, for an
overall period of six months and eight days. The rest of the length is
attributable to the State authorities or the defendant"s failure to appear at
the hearings. Thus, the delay between 20 December 1999 and 20 June 2000 was due
to the district court"s failure to notify the defendant about the hearing.
Further, the courts held no hearings between 12 January 1998 and 12 April 1999,
and between 12 September 2000 and 2 October 2001. The Government did not present
any plausible explanation for these periods of inactivity. In the following
period the case was adjourned on three occasions due to the judges"
participation in other proceedings and the absence of lay judges. In this
respect 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 §
1 (see Muti v. Italy, judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A No. 281-C, § 15).
Therefore, counting from 5 May 1998, the State may be held responsible for an
overall delay of two years, ten months and four days.
33. Finally, the
Court notes that whereas the subject-matter of the civil dispute at issue may
not have been of crucial importance to the applicant, it nevertheless
represented a certain value for him, having in mind, in particular, the fact
that the applicant is a pensioner.
34. Thus, in the circumstances of the
case, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and
failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
35. There has
accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. Article 13
of the Convention
36. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an
effective
