THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KUZNETSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 5076/05, 25573/05, 30076/05, 41335/05, 1399/06, 36533/06, 45149/06, 9564/07, 14928/07 and 44630/08 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 July 2016

This judgment is final but it may b e subject to editorial revision .

In the case of Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom , President, Dmitry Dedov , Branko Lubarda, judges , and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2016 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

3. Having studied the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations, the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications. The declarations are therefore rejected.

THE FACTS

4 . The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5 . The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6 . Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

I I. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 5076/05

7 . The applicant, Mr Kuznetsov , (application no. 5076/05) died, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant ’ s wife, Ms Kuznetsova, wished to pursue the application after his death. The Government did not object to that request. The Court has already, in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, examined and confirmed the locus standi of their heirs or close relatives to pursue the proceedings before the Court, including in cases brought under Article 6 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § § 48-50, ECHR 2009 and Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France , no. 55929/00, § 29, 5 July 2005 ).

8 . The decisive element for the Court to determine while assessing the locus standi of persons wishing to pursue the proceedings on behalf of a late applicant is whether those people, in principle, can claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant ’ s wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey , no. 73359/10 , § 29, 8 April 2014 ). In this respect, the Court has developed a strong presumption that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice be done, even after the applicant ’ s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).

9 . In the light of the above and given the elements of the case, the Court holds that Ms Kuznetsova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application no. 5076/05 on the behalf of her late husband and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires a continuation of the examination of the case.

III . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

10 . The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

1 1 . The Court firstly notes the Government ’ s argument raised in respect of a number of the applications. In particular, they claimed that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies available to them before and after the adoption of the pilot judgement Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009).

1 2 . As regards the domestic remedies existing prior to the adoption of the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its previous finding that at the time when the applicants brought their applications to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see Meshcheryakov v. Russia , no. 24564/04, § 36, 3 February 2011 with references therein, and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia , no. 42046/06 , § 48, 25 June 2009 ).

1 3 . As regards the domestic remedy introduced in response to the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see, for similar reasoning, Fateyenkov and Others v. Russia , no. 44099/04 et al., 18 February 2016, with further references) . In line with this principle, the Court decides to proceed with the examination of the present cases (see, mutatis mutandis , Utyuzhnikova v. Russia , no. 25957/03, §§ 48-52, 7 October 2010; compare with Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 26716/09, § 32, 23 September 2010) and, accordingly, dismisses the Government ’ s non ‑ exhaustion objection.

1 4 . Turning to the examination of the present cases, 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

1 5 . In the leading case of Kormacheva v. Russia (no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

16 . Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

17 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

I V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

18 . Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

19 . The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these 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.

20 . It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

21 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

2 2 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Rubtsova v. Russia, no. 22554/04, §§ 30 and 52, 13 January 2011, Vokhmina v. Russia, no. 26384/02, §§ 26 and 37, 9 June 2005 and Plemyanova v. Russia, no. 27865/06, §§ 27 and 39, 15 October 2009), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

2 3 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Decides that the wife of the applicant , Mr Kuznetsov (application no. 5076/05), Ms Kuznetsova, has locus standi in the proceedings;

3. Rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the submitted unilateral declarations;

4. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 25573/05, 30076/05, 41335/05, 1399/06 and 36533/06 inadmissible;

5. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings ;

6. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants and to Ms Kusnetsova (case no. 5076/05), within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points .

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 July 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

( excessive length of civil proceedings )

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth /

Date of registration

Representative name and location

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant / household

(in euros) [1]

5076/05

17/11/2004

Aleksey Filippovich KUZNETSOV

20/02/1947

11/04/2000

12/07/2005

5 year(s) and

3 month(s) and

2 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

2,600

25573/05

08/06/2005

Irina Anatolyevna DIK

10/05/1958

Zavyalova Yelena Yuryevna

Pyatigorsk

05/05/1998

07/05/2001

27/07/2000

27/07/2005

2 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

23 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

4 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

21 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,800

30076/05

23/07/2005

HOUSEHOLD

Yuriy Nikolayevich KORNEYEV

05/09/1952

Nina Vladimirovna KORNEYEVA

20/12/1955

Kiryukhin Sergey Ivanovich

Orsk

23/04/2002

21/05/2008

6 year(s) and

29 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

2,500

41335/05

30/10/2005

Gulsima Mindiyarovna NASYROVA

13/08/1954

Nevelev Mikhail Yuryevich

Moscow

05/05/1998

11/12/2002

22/03/2006

18/07/2002

28/06/2005

18/12/2008

4 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

14 day(s)

3 level(s) of jurisdiction

2 year(s) and

6 month(s) and

18 day(s)

3 level(s) of jurisdiction

2 year(s) and

8 month(s) and

27 day(s)

3 level(s) of jurisdiction

3,000

1399/06

13/12/2005

Valentina Ivanovna MAKARENKO

17/10/1947

15/07/1998

22/06/2005

6 year(s) and

11 month(s) and

8 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

3,000

36533/06

04/08/2006

Raisa Ivanovna ROMANCHENKO

27/03/1952

05/05/1998

01/03/2006

7 year(s) and

9 month(s) and

25 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

3,565

45149/06

21/08/2006

Viktor Viktorovich SHAROVARIN

04/02/1966

12/08/2004

04/12/2006

2 year(s) and

3 month(s) and

23 day(s)

1 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,500

9564/07

12/02/2007

Lyudmila Stepanovna BONDARENKO

06/09/1943

05/05/1998

03/04/2007

8 year(s) and

10 month(s) and 30 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

4,000

14928/07

18/02/2007

Anatoliy Olegovich ORLYANSKIY

27/02/1973

13/03/2000

19/09/2006

6 year(s) and

6 month(s) and

7 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

3,900

44630/08

03/08/2008

Nadezhda Mikhaylovna LOPYAKOVA

28/06/1949

09/04/2004

07/02/2008

3 year(s) and

9 month(s) and

30 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,600

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.