THIRD SECTION
CASE OF CHIRYKINA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 33188/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 October 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Chirykina v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 33188/07) against the Russia 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, Mrs Yelena Yuryevna Chirykina (“the applicant”), on 23 June 2007.
2. The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
3. Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Court considers that the proposed declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of the present application. The declaration is therefore rejected.
THE FACTS
4. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads 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 ...”
7. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
8. In the leading case of Kormacheva v. Russia (no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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.
10. The complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rubtsova v. Russia, no. 22554/04, §§ 30 and 52, 13 January 2011; Vokhmina v. Russia, no. 26384/02, §§ 26 and 37, 9 June 2005; and Plemyanova v. Russia, no. 27865/06, §§ 27 and 39, 15 October 2009), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
13. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted and declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that the application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 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, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
33188/07
23/06/2007
Yelena Yuryevna CHIRYKINA
02/11/1962
15/09/1999
05/12/2007
8 years and 2 months and 21 days 2 levels of jurisdiction
4,600
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy