Last Updated on February 9, 2021 by LawEuro
. The case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF FEDOROVA v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 43768/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 January 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Fedorova v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
GannaYudkivska,
Mattias Guyomar, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 43768/12) 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 Tatyana NikolayevnaFedorova (“the applicant”), on 13 June 2012;
the Court’s decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning length of domestic proceedings and lack of effective remedies and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the Court’s decision of 3 June 2014 to strike out the application on the basis of the Unilateral Declaration of the Government;
the Court’s decision of 1 March 2016 to restore the application to its list of cases;
the parties’ submissions;
Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in St-Petersbourg, Russian Federation.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently I. Lishchyna.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5. On 16 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil claim against her former husband and other parties claiming her right of property to a part of a flat. The claim was joined to the other civil proceedings in which the title to same flat had been disputed between the other parties.
6. On 25 May 2011 the Feodosiya Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unfounded.
7. On 15 November 2011 the Crimea Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
8. On 9 February 2012 the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicant complainedthat the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that she had no effective remedy in this connection. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“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.”
10. 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
11. In the leading case of Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, no. 23786/02, 30 November 2006, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
12. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 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.
13. The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, no. 23786/02, §§ 61 and 66, 30 November 2006), the Court considers it reasonable to award 1,500 euros, be converted into the national currency of the Russian Federation, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the applicant.
17. As regards the other claims, including the claim for default interest with regard to the alleged delays in the execution of the Unilateral Declaration approved by the Court on 3 June 2014, the Court considers that those claims are unsubstantiated. It finds no fault on the part of the Government as regards the alleged delays in the performance of the undertakings under the abovementioned Unilateral Declaration. The Court therefore dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 January 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Martina Keller Arnfinn Bårdsen
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply