FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57008/18
Jevgenijs TAUTERS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 June 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Ivana Jelić, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 November 2018,
Having regard to the decision to give notice to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 (as regards domestic proceedings no. A420277914) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties;
Having regard to the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Jevgēnijs Tauters, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Riga. He was represented before the Court by Ms V. Tanasi, lawyer practising in Mārupe.
2. The Latvian Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce.The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.Prior proceedings
4. The applicant was involved in an administrative dispute with the City Development Department of Riga City Council (“the Department”) regarding the suspension of a building permit which had been issued to the applicant to refurbish his house. By a final decision of 3 October 2013 the domestic courts allowed the applicant’s claim and quashed that decision (case no. A42728108).Proceedings at issue
5. On 29 October 2013, relying on section 93 (3) of the Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums, see paragraph 14 below), the applicant applied to the Department concerning compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from the suspension of the building permit. On 1 April 2014 the Department dismissed that request.
6. On 30 April 2014 the applicant brought proceedings before the administrative courts.
7. On 10 May 2014 the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa) initiated administrative proceedings (case no. A420277914), and on 2 October 2014 it dismissed the applicant’s claim as unfounded.
8. On 22 October 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal, but a judge did not proceed with his appeal (atstāt bez izskatīšanas) on the ground that the court fee had not been paid.
9. On 19 November 2014 the applicant paid the court fee. On 26 November 2014 the Administrative Regional Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa) admitted his appeal and decided to examine the case following the written procedure. It scheduled a hearing for 3 December 2015.
10. However, on 3 December 2015 the Administrative Regional Court, having examined the case materials at its disposal, considered that additional evidence was necessary, and, therefore, on 15 February 2016 held a hearing. On 2 May 2016 the Administrative Regional Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim and awarded him 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
11. On 30 May 2016 the Department lodged an appeal on points of law.
12. On 27 June 2016 the Supreme Court (Augstākā tiesa) initiated proceedings on points of law. By a final judgment of 10 July 2018, in a written procedure, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court.Relevant domestic law
13. Section 92 of the Administrative Procedure Law (in force since 1 February 2004) provides that everyone has the right to receive commensurate compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage caused by an administrative act or action of a public authority.
14. A claim for compensation can be submitted either together with an application to declare an administrative act or action of a public authority unlawful (section 93 (1)) or to the public authority concerned following a judgment adopted in such proceedings (section 93 (3)).
COMPLAINT
15. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of administrative proceedings on compensation.
THE LAW
16. The applicant alleged that the administrative proceedings (case no. A420277914) had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 6 § 1 which provides, 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...”
17. The Government contested that argument.
Admissibility
18. The Government did not claim that an effective domestic remedy for the length of administrative proceedings existed (in contrast Guravska v. Latvia (dec.), no. 41553/18, 7 July 2020). Nevertheless, they disagreed that there had been a violation of the above provision arguing that the case was complex and the applicant had contributed to the length of proceedings.
19. The applicant argued that the length of proceedings was excessive, and that it was attributable to the State.
20. The Court reiterates that in matters falling under the civil limb of Article 6 the reasonable time may begin to run, in some circumstances, even before the issue of the writ commencing proceedings before the court to which the plaintiff submits the dispute. The Court considers that in the present case the period to be taken into consideration began on 29 October 2013. The application to the Department was a prerequisite for bringing the proceedings to the court (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, § 32, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, and, mutatis mutandis, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27, and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 65‑66, ECHR 2007‑II). It ended on 10 July 2018, when the Supreme Court adopted its final judgment. The proceedings, therefore, lasted 4 years and 8 months for pre-trial proceedings before the public authority and three levels of jurisdiction.
21. 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).
22. The Court observes that the administrative proceedings concerned compensation solely and, therefore, were not complex. What was at stake for the applicant did not call for a particularly expeditious decision in the present case, taken into account that the applicant had a possibility to claim compensation earlier (within case no. A42728108) and that he did not use this possibility instead bringing separate proceedings before the Department (see paragraph 5. above).
23. As regards the conduct of the applicant, there were no significant delays which can be attributed to him.
24. As regards the conduct of the domestic authorities, there were two prolonged periods which can be attributed to the domestic courts.
25. The first of those periods lasted for one and a half year between 26 November 2014, when the Administrative Regional Court admitted the applicant’s appeal, and 2 May 2016 when it examined the case. Whilst most of this time, the case was at a preparation stage pending a written hearing of 3 December 2015, overall, during this one and a half year, several procedural decisions were adopted, written and oral hearings were held, and additional evidence obtained. Therefore, this period cannot be considered excessive (compare, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v.Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 210, 27 June 2017).
26. The second of those periods lasted for two years between 27 June 2016, when the Supreme Court initiated proceedings on points of law, and 10 July 2018, when the final judgment was adopted following a written procedure. The Government have not provided any explanation or evidence that any action was taken during this time.
27. While the Court notes that there has been a period of inactivity of two years before the Supreme Court, it also observes that there was no reason for the domestic courts to examine the applicant’s case with particular urgency. In the overall period of 4 years, 8 months, the case was examined by the public authority and three levels of jurisdiction. Moreover, in other levels the case was examined rapidly without any hinderance. Therefore, the Court considers that this period of inactivity of two years is not sufficiently serious to warrant the conclusion that the total duration of the proceedings in the circumstances of the present case was excessive (compare Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 37, Series A no. 71, and contrast Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 47‑54, 11 March 2021).
28. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 July 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Martina KellerJovan Ilievski
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy