FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 31740/08
by Anatoliy Dmytrovych SEN and Olga Likandrivna SEN
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 June 2008,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Anatoliy Dmytrovych Sen (“the first applicant”), and Mrs Olga Likandrivna Sen (“the second applicant”), are Ukrainian nationals who were born, respectively, in 1959 and 1935 and live in Lviv and in the Volyn Region. The first applicant was represented before the Court by Mr S. Rabinovych, a lawyer practising in Lviv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The first set of proceedings
On 22 June 2001 Mr Y. (a private individual) lodged a claim against the applicants with the Lyuboml Court seeking the applicants' eviction from a flat, which he had purchased from the second applicant.
On 7 November 2001, following the first applicant's request, the Lyuboml Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of another set of civil proceedings linked to the applicants' case. In December 2002 the court resumed the proceedings, after the other case had been heard on appeal on 16 December 2002.
In January 2003 the second applicant lodged a counter-claim against Mr Y. seeking the invalidation of the flat sales contract.
On 7 May 2003 the Lyuboml Court delivered a judgment in the case. On 5 November 2003 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal upheld it. On 20 October 2005 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
On 23 March 2006 the Lyuboml Court allowed the claim of Mr Y. and rejected, as unsubstantiated, the second applicant's counter-claim. The court found that Mr Y. had a title to the impugned flat and ordered the applicants' eviction from it.
On 29 June 2006 and 19 December 2007, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment.
According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the domestic courts adjourned the hearings on seven occasions upon the applicants' requests or due to their or their representatives' failure to appear.
The applicants disagreed, stating that they had not been informed of two of the hearings referred to by the Government.
2. The second set of proceedings
In February 2004 Mr Y. lodged a claim with the domestic courts against the first applicant for the recovery of a debt.
By the final decision of 19 January 2007, the Supreme Court allowed the claim in full.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the first set of proceedings.
Relying on the same provision, the applicants also complained about the outcome of the first set of proceedings and stated that the judges of the Supreme Court dealing with their case were not independent and impartial. The first applicant further complained about the outcome and length of second set of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the length of the first set of proceedings. The above provision 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 was a violation of the above provision.
The Court notes that the proceedings lasted from 22 June 2001 to 19 December 2007, excluding the period from November 2001 to December 2002, during which the proceedings were suspended. Accordingly, they lasted in total for about five years and five months 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 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).
The Court notes that what was at stake for the applicants did not call for a particularly expeditious decision in their case. It further notes that the applicants somewhat delayed the proceedings by failing to attend some of the hearings. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, to the overall duration of the proceedings, the Court finds that their length did not in itself exceed what may be considered “reasonable”.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicants' complaints. Having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints 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 also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsRait Maruste
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy