FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 887/06 Alevtina Aleksandrovna BURMISTROVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 17 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Erik Møse , Dmitry Dedov , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2005 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Alevtina Aleksandrovna Burmistrova , is a Russian national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Yaroslavl . She was represented before the Court by Mrs Y.O. Burmistrova , a lawyer practising in Yaroslavl .

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights .

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the ca s e, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant ’ s son

3. On 17 February 1995 criminal proceedings were initiated with regard to the applicant ’ s son, Burmistrov Vadim Olegovich (Mr. B.).

4. On 28 November 1996 he was apprehended in Moscow and placed into custody.

5. On 18 November 1998 Mr. B. was released and on 7 November 1999 he died of acute heart failure .

6. On 2 March 2000 the investigator discontinued criminal proceedings against Mr. B. due to his death.

2. Proceedings initiated by the applicant after her son ’ s death

7. The applicant filed a supervisory review application to quash the above mentioned decision of the investigator. On 3 October 2001 the Presidium of the Yaroslavl Regional Court granted her request.

8. On 5 December 2001 the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of Yaroslavl remitted the case to the prosecutor for an additional investigation .

9. On 25 December 2001 the Yaroslavl Regional Court upheld this decision on appeal.

10. On 25 January 2002 the case was transferred to the Department of the Ministry of the Interior (the UVD) in the Yaroslavl Region.

11. On 20 February 2002 the applicant was engaged as the legal representative of Mr. B.

12. On 26 February 2002 Mr. B. was charged with fraud. The applicant was informed about this.

13. On 25 March 2002 the UVD received the applicant ’ s comments on the charges.

14. On 27 March 2002 her comments were rejected and she was informed that she could study the case materials.

15. On 21 April 2003 the investigator ordered to discontinue the case file study. The applicant was informed accordingly.

16 . On 23 May 2003 the bill of indictment was issued. As to that date, the case comprised 167 volumes and involved 6 accused persons, 78 witnesses and 4,946 victims.

17. On 2 June 2003 the case was transferred to the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of Yaroslavl .

18. On 2 July 2003 the judge listed a hearing for 10 July 2003.

19. On 10 July 2003 the hearing was adjourned. The judge scheduled the hearing for 20 November 2003 at the request of one of the accused persons. The applicant also demanded to adjourn the hearing in order to study case materials.

20. From 24 November 2003 to 7 May 2004 the court assessed written evidence, summoned and interrogated 1,701 persons.

21. On 26 March 2004 the applicant informed the court about her intention to get in ‑ patient treatment in a hospital from 31 March 2004 to 25 April 2004. She asked to adjourn the proceedings. The court scheduled the following hearing for 5 May 2004.

22 . On 7 May 2004 the court commissioned a post mortem psychiatric inquiry.

23 . On 18 October 2004 the experts remitted their report to the court . They analysed all medical records in respect of the applicant ’ s son and materials of the criminal case. They concluded that it was impossible to answer questions submitted to them because there was no consistent and sufficient information about the state of his mental health.

24. From 31 January to 11 April 2005 the court continued to consider the case, assess evidence and documents, summoned the persons who had not been interrogated.

25. On 5 May 2005 the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court discontinued criminal proceedings owning to a lack of corpus delicti .

26. On 1 July 2005 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Yaroslavl Regional Court.

B. Relevant domestic law

27. According to Article 27 §1 (2) and Article 24 §1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation criminal prosecution shall be discontinued owning to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime .

COMPLAINT

28. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of proceedings initiated in order to exonerate her late son from any finding of guilt.

THE LAW

29. The applicant contended that the length of the proceedings was in violation of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is en titled to a . .. hearing wit hin a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal . . .”

30. On 1 July 2013 the Court communicate d to the respondent Government the complaint relating to th e length of proceedings.

A. The parties ’ submissions

31. In their submissions the Government argued that the applicant did not comply with the six months rule as she had raised her complaint only on 26 February 2006 and that the applicant does not have the requisite standing to complain . Furthermore, according to the Government, the complaint was in any event manifestly ill ‑ founded, and, thus, inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention.

32. The applicant maintained her complaint.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

1. Six months and the applicant ’ s locus standi

33. The Court first recalls that if there is no adequate remedy against a particular act, which is alleged to be in breach of the Convention, the date when that act takes place is taken to be “final” for the purposes of the six months ’ rule (see, e.g., Valašinas v. Lithuania ( dec. ), no. 44558/98, 14 March 2000).

34. Turning to the present case, t he Court concludes that the six months period starts to run from the date of final judgment in the case, namely, 1 July 2005. The Court notes that the first letter from the applicant was sent to the Court on 1 December 2005. In this letter she provided a brief summary of the facts of the case and presented an outline of the complaints which were later developed in the application form of 26 February 2006. In such circumstances the Court considers that t he case was lodged on 1 December 2005 . The Government ’ s objection should therefore be dismissed.

35. The Court does not consider it necessary in the present case to rule on the objections made by the Government in respect of the applicant ’ s standing since, eve n assuming that the applicant can claim to be a victim of a Convention violation , it considers that the application is in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

2. Length of proceedings

36. 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).

37. Turning to the present case, the Court first notes that the period of time to be considered when determining proceedings starts on 3 October 2001 when the Presidium of the Yaroslavl Regional Court granted the applicant ’ s request to quash the relevant decision of the investigator relating to discontinuation of criminal proceedings against Mr. B. These proceedings ended on 1 July 2005 when the Yaroslavl Regional Court upheld the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings against Mr. B. owning to a lack of corpus delicti . Thus, the proceedings lasted 3 years, 8 months and 28 days .

38. T he Court recalls that particular urgency is required where, inter alia , the delay may render the proceedings pointless; the case concerns the applicants ’ health and payment of social benefits, means of substance, civil status and capacity or employment dispute (see X v. France , 31 March 1992, § 47, Series A no. 234- C ; Marchenko v. Russia , no. 29510/04, § 40 , 5 October 2006 ; Shneyderman v. Russia , no. 36045/02, § 26 , 11 January 2007 ; Bock v. Germany , 29 March 1989, §§ 47-49 , Series A no. 150 ; Kormacheva v. Russia , no. 53084/99, § 56 , 29 January 2004 ). The Court discerns none of the present elements in the case at hand.

39. The Court stresses that the case was particularly complex. The accused were prosecuted for 35 counts of fraud which affected numerous victims. Moreover, it required studying a very voluminous case ‑ file (see paragraph 16 above) . The Court does not lose sight of the period from 7 May until 18 October 2004 during which the post mortem psychiatric inquiry was carried out (see paragraphs 22 and 23 above). However, t he information provided to the Court with regard to the parties ’ conduct in the course of the proceedings does not allow the Court to detect any substantial periods of the authorities ’ inactivity.

40. Regard being had to the overall diligence displayed by the authorities and the particular complexity of the case , the Court considers that the “reasonable time” requirement was not breached in the present case .

41. Accordingly, the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention must be dismissed as being manifestly ill ‑ founded, in accordance with 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 12 March 2015 .

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar President