FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SHAPOVALOVA v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 18508/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 September 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shapovalova v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 18508/07) 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, Mrs Lidiya Semenovna Shapovalova (“the applicant”), on 3 April 2007.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.
3. On 8 September 2010 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 1945 and lives in Donetsk.
5. On 17 November 2001 she instituted court proceedings against her employer and the Social Insurance Fund for the recovery of health-related payments allegedly due to her.
6. On 10 September 2003 the Kuybyshevskyy District Court (“the District Court”) delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed against it. On 13 November 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) requested the applicant to lodge her appeal, by 25 December 2003, in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 15 January 2004 it quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.
7. On 29 November 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 25 March 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld it. On 3 October 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination.
8. On 17 June 2010 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.
9. According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant modified her claim on four occasions. Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s and other parties’ failure to appear. Thirty further hearings were adjourned, mainly due to other parties’ failure to appear, the absence or sickness of a judge, the need to collect additional documents or for unspecified reasons. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted for about one year and one month.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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 ...”
11. The Government contested that argument.
12. The period to be taken into consideration began on 17 November 2001 and ended on 17 June 2010. It thus lasted eight years and seven months for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
13. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
14. 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).
15. Turning to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant, who somewhat contributed to the length of the proceedings (see paragraphs 6 and 9 above), cannot explain their overall length. On the other hand, the Court finds that the protraction of the proceedings was mainly caused by two remittals of the case for fresh examination (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above) and by the repeated adjournments of the court hearings (see paragraph 9 above). It concludes, therefore, that the main responsibility for the lengthy duration of the proceedings rests with the State.
16. 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, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 62, 21 December 2006).
17. 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.
II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
18. The applicant also complained under Articles 1, 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about and on account of the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings.
19. Having carefully examined the applicant’s submissions in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
20. It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21. 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
22. In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed “3,150,989.50[1] or 51,791,122.91[2]” Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) and asked the Court to oblige the Social Insurance Fund to pay her certain monthly payments. She also claimed EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
23. The Government contested the claims for pecuniary damage and, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
24. 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, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage and awards the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
25. The applicant also claimed EUR 500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. She provided copes of the receipts to the amount of UAH 85.63[3] for correspondence with the Court.
26. The Government contested these claims.
27. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 8 for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
28. 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 complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings 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
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8 (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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 September 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1]. About 276,924 euros (EUR)
[2]. About EUR 4,551,650
[3]. About EUR 8
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy