THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8746/05
Tatyana Yakovlevna KURENEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings)
In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for delays which occurred in the process of the examination of the applicant’s civil case. In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceedings, the relevant complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the “reasonable time” requirement (see, among other authorities, Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 34784/02, §§ 41-43, 23 September 2010; Danilina v. Russia (dec.), no. 5727/04, 11 March 2010; Kuznetsova v. Russia (dec.), no. 9839/03, 24 May 2007; Antonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 38020/03, 3 November 2011; Markin v. Russia (dec.), no. 59502/00, 16 September 2004; and Kuznetsov v. Russia (dec.), no. 73994/01, 17 June 2004).
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings)
The applicant also complained that she did not have at their disposal an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings in their civil cases. The Court reiterates in this respect that this provision only applies to those with an arguable claim under the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61). Given that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 was rejected for being manifestly ill-founded, the complaint under Article 13 should also be declared manifestly ill-founded and rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Remaining complaints
The Court notes that the applicant’s remaining complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 April 2017.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length Level of jurisdiction
Other complaints under well-established
case-law
8746/05
29/01/2005
Tatyana Yakovlevna KURENEVA
01/10/1944
11/09/2002
20/12/2005
3 year(s) and
3 month(s) and 10 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings -
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy