FIRST SECTION
CASE OF TITARENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 25966/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 March 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Titarenko v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a committee composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 25966/04) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Aleksandr Petrovich Titarenko and Mrs Galina Kirillovna Titarenko (“the applicants”), on 7 June 2004.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 23 September 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1954 and live in Moscow.
A. Labour dispute
5. On 5 October 2001 the applicants sued the Nefron association seeking conclusion of employment contracts.
6. The Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) scheduled the first hearing for 21 February 2002. Between 21 February 2002 and 17 June 2003 one hearing was held as planned. Six scheduled hearings did not take place due to the respondent’s default in appearance or requests for adjournment, three hearings had to be postponed following the applicants’ failure to appear or requests for adjournment, and three hearings could not proceed as both parties either failed to submit evidence or to show in court altogether.
7. On 17 June 2003 the District Court considered that the applicants no longer intended to pursue their civil action and decided to strike the case out of its list.
8. On 7 August 2003 the applicants asked the court to reinstate the case to its list claiming that they had not been able to appear at the hearings because the first applicant had been undergoing hospital treatment.
9. On 9 September 2003 the District Court quashed its earlier decision and reinstated the case to its list. The next hearing was scheduled for 3 November 2003. Between 3 November 2003 and 12 July 2004 five hearings were held as planned, whereas five other hearings were postponed due to the fault of the respondent, two for the applicants’ failure to appear, and two others for both parties’ default.
10. On 12 July 2004 the District Court again considered that the applicants no longer intended to pursue their civil action and decided to strike the case out of its list.
11. On 22 December 2004 the applicants asked the court to reinstate the case to its list. On 19 January 2005 the District Court quashed its decision of 12 July 2004 after finding that the applicants had not been duly notified of certain unspecified hearings and resumed the proceedings. The next hearing was scheduled for 31 January 2005.
12. The hearing of 31 January 2005 was adjourned as the respondent did not appear.
13. On 16 February and 10 March 2005 the hearings were held as planned.
14. On 11 March 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ claims in full.
15. On 8 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
B. Pension dispute
16. On an unspecified date the first applicant sued the Military Commission of Moscow for recalculation of his pension.
17. On 14 July 2006 the Justice of the Peace of the 384th Court Circuit of the Meshchanskiy District of Moscow dismissed his claims.
18. On 25 October 2006 the Meshchankiy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment on appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
19. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of excessive length of the labour dispute. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6, the relevant part of 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 ...”
A. Admissibility
20. The Government noted that the application had been lodged a year prior to the final adjudication of the dispute at the domestic level and requested that the complaint be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.
21. The Court observes that, as it has found on many occasions previously, the period covered by the reasonable time guarantee in a particular case runs until the judgment is given by the Court (see, among others, Bordikov v. Russia, no. 921/03, 8 October 2009; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, 19 March 2009). Therefore, it rejects the Government’s argument.
22. 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
23. The Government submitted that the case had been complex due to its voluminous materials and several witness examinations. They further argued that the applicants had not displayed due interest in the proceedings failing to appear in court for scheduled hearings, and had lodged multiple procedural motions further delaying the progress of the case.
24. The applicants maintained their complaint.
25. The Court observes that the proceedings in the applicants’ case commenced on 5 October 2001 and ended on 8 June 2005. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings were not pending between 17 June and 9 September 2003 and between 12 July 2004 and 19 January 2005 following the trial court’s decisions to leave the case without consideration, their aggregate length amounted approximately to two years and eleven months.
26. 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).
27. The Court considers that the present case was not particularly difficult to determine, having involved a single civil claim of employment nature.
28. Turning to the applicants’ conduct, the Court observes that in the course of the proceedings they did not appear in court or requested adjournment of the hearings on five occasions, and on other five occasions they defaulted together with the respondent or failed to submit the required evidence thwarting the progress of the case. Consequently, it takes the view that the largest part of the delay is attributable to the applicants.
29. Having regard to the behaviour of the authorities, the Court accepts that the trial court’s defective notification of the applicants on one occasion led to an interruption in the proceedings (see para. 11 above) and reiterates that the employment nature of the dispute required particular diligence on the part of the court (Ruotolo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 17, Series A no. 230‑D). It is also mindful of the fact that the District Court did not avail themselves of the measures available to them under national law to discipline the defaulting respondent (see Sokolov v. Russia, no. 3734/02, § 40, 22 September 2005).
30. However, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the applicants’ contribution to the length of the proceedings identified above was so serious as to warrant the conclusion that the “reasonable time” requirement was not breached.
31. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
32. The first applicant also complained under Article 6 and 13 of the Convention of incorrect application of the domestic law by the courts in the second dispute concerning his pension allowance.
33. The Court notes that the applicant essentially complains about the outcome of the dispute. It recalls that, in principle, it is not its task to act by calling into question the outcome of the domestic proceedings. The domestic courts are best placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case and for interpreting and applying rules of substantive and procedural law (see Pekinel v. Turkey, no. 9939/02, § 53, 18 March 2008). Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 March 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachChristos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy