FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25294/07
Aleksandr Veniaminovich KAZANTSEV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 June 2007,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Veniaminovich Kazantsev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in the Kyiv Region. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a former commander and one of the survivors of an aircraft, which was owned by the A. company (the applicant’s former employer) and which crashed on 3 March 2004.
On 9 February 2005 he lodged a civil claim with the Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) against the A. company, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the above accident. Subsequently he amended his claim on four occasions, also seeking the recovery of salary-related arrears.
On 28 November 2008 the above court rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. On 19 March 2009 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for retrial. On 17 August 2009 the Supreme Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s request for the extension of time-limits for lodging the appeal in cassation against the above decisions.
On 15 March 2010 the District Court partly allowed the claim and ordered the A. company to pay the applicant certain amounts in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and salary-related arrears. The judgment remains unenforced.
According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant made various procedural motions; he lodged the amendments to his claim and his appeal in breach of the procedural formalities and the courts extended the time-limits for him to rectify those documents. Sixteen hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s, his representative’s or both parties’ failure to appear or following the applicant’s or his representative’s requests. The applicant disagreed stating that he had not attended only two hearings. The above delays caused by the applicant protracted the proceedings by one year approximately. Nineteen hearings were adjourned due to the respondent’s or third parties’ failure to appear or following the respondent’s request, due to the absence of the judge or vacant court premises, or for unspecified reasons.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in his case.
He also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that unspecified members of the commission which investigated the accident of 3 March 2004 put psychological pressure on him, under Article 14 of the Convention on account of the outcome of the proceedings, and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about and on account of non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 March 2010.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. The complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government disagreed that there had been a violation of the Convention.
The period to be taken into account began on 9 February 2005 and ended on 15 March 2010. The proceedings thus lasted for about five years and one month before three judicial instances.
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 its complexity, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, for instance, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
Turning to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the case was not complex. It further considers that the proceedings, which concerned, inter alia, the recovery of salary-related arrears, were important for the applicant and called for an expeditious decision. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court considers that, even though some delays could be attributed to them (in particular, the length of the first examination of the case by the District Court and nineteen adjournments of the hearings) and could have possibly been avoided, they were not such as to warrant finding a violation of the Convention, especially given the overall length of the proceedings and the fact that the applicant also contributed to that length (see above).
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
2. The Court has examined the applicant’s remaining complaints. Having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy