FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 53084/99 by Tatiana Akhunbekovna KORMACHEVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 May 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , Mrs E. Steiner , judges , and Mr S . Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 October 1999,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Tatiana Akhunbekovna Kormacheva , is a Russian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Gus Khrustalnyi .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Before her removal to Gus Khrustalnyi the applicant lived and worked in Mys Shmidta , a town located in Chukotka , a far-eastern territory adjacent to Alaska.

On 31 October 1996 the applicant filed an action against her former employer, a trading office of the Shmidtovskiy District of the Chukotka Autonomous Region ( Шмидтовская муниципальная розничная коммерческая торговая контора ). She claimed the recovery of unpaid emoluments, discharge and leave allowances, and proper formalisation of her discharge.

As there was no progress in the action, in 1997-1999 the applicant made a number of unproductive complaints to the supervising judicial authorities, including the Judicial Qualifications Board ( Квалификационная коллегия судей ), about the failure of the Shmidtovskiy District Court to deal with her case. The court ignored the orders to expedite the proceedings.

The first examination of the case by the Shmidtovskiy District Court took place on 3 June 1999. The court ruled in the applicant’s favour.

The defendant’s appeal was allowed by the Court of the Chukotka Autonomous Region on 23 December 1999. The case was remitted to the Shmidtovskiy District Court for a new examination.

On 16 March 2001 the Shmidtovskiy District Court partially granted the applicant’s claims.

On 21 May 2001 a public prosecutor of the Shmidtovskiy District lodged an appeal on behalf of the defendant.

On 11 October 2001 the Court of the Chukotka Autonomous Region quashed the judgment of 16 March 2001 and ordered a re-trial of the case.

On 14 November 2002 the Shmidtovskiy District Court partially granted the applicant’s claims. The applicant wished to appeal against this judgment, but since by the time she received it the time-limit for the appeal had passed, she made a request to have the time-limit extended.

B. Relevant domestic law

According to Article 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964, civil actions must be prepared for trial seven days after the action is lodged. If litigants are not located within the same town or territory, actions between them arising out of labour disputes must be examined by a court of the first instance within twenty days.

According to Article 284-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal court must examine the appeal within ten days following its filing.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in her case. She adds, with reference to Article 13, that she does not have an effective remedy in relation to her complaint.

THE LAW

1. The applicant’s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 31 October 1996 and ended on 24 November 2002 after the judgment of the Shmidtovskiy District Court had become final. They therefore lasted 6 years and 24 days.

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.

The Court notes that part of the period lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis as the Convention came into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998, i.e. 1 year, 6 months and 5 days after the proceedings had started. However, the Court may take this period into account when deciding if the total length of the proceedings was “reasonable” (see, as a recent authority, Sawicka v. Poland , no. 37645/97, §§ 42-43, 1 October 2002).

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.

2. The applicant complained, in the second place, of the fact that in Russia there was no court to which application could be made to complain of the excessive length of proceedings. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention.

The Government contested that argument. They maintained that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded and, in any event, premature because the judgment of 14 November 2002 had not become final.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President