FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF SAFYANNIKOVA v. UKRAINE

( Application no. 31580/03 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 6 July 2007

FINAL

26/10/2007

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision .             

In the case of Safyannikova v. Ukraine ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen , President , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr R. Maruste , Mr M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2007 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 31580/03) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, M r s Lyudmyla Ivanivna Safyannikova (“the applicant”), on 24 September 2003 .

2 . The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev .

3 . On 5 April 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government . Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Konotop , Sumy region .

5 . On 15 October 1998 the Konotop Court , following the request of M r s P.G., instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on a charge of minor bodily injuries.

6 . On 17 February 1999 the applicant brought similar counter-charges against M r s P.G. and M r s P. V.

7 . On 17 November 2000 the Konotop Court acquitted the applicant, M r s P.G. and M r s P.V.

8 . On 19 December 2000 the Sumy Regional Court ( herinafter “the Regional Court ”) , upon M r s P.G. ' s cassation appeal, quashed this decision in part concerning the applicant ' s acquittal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The Regional Court held that the first instance court had failed to examine all the factual circumstances of the case.

9 . On 23 March 2001 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to six months ' imprisonment and UAH 200 [1] fine (suspended as time-barred ).

10 . On 26 April 2001 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the ground that the instance court erred in calculation of the statutory time-limit for the sanction .

11 . On 13 June 2001 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to six months ' imprisonment and UAH 200 fine (suspended as time-barred).

12 . On 11 October 2001 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) upheld this decision.

13 . On 19 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed all previous decisions on the ground of serious procedural violations by the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.

14 . On 29 November 2002 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to 180 hours of public work (suspended under the Amnesty Act). It also ordered the applicant to pay M r s P.G. UAH 977 [2] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

15 . On 18 February and 15 July 2003 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.

THE LAW

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

16 . The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” r equirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“ In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal... ”

17 . The Government contested that argument.

18 . The period to be taken into consideration began on 15 October 1998 and ended on 15 July 2003 . It thus lasted four years and nine months for three level s of jurisdiction .

A. Admissibility

19 . The Government submitted no observations on the admissibility of the applicant ' s complaints .

20 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

21 . The Government submitted that the domestic courts considered the case without substantial delay s, and that the protracted length of the proceedings was primarily due to the applicant ' s repetitive challenge to their judgments.

22 . The applicant considered that the proceedings had not been conducted with sufficient diligence.

23 . 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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II) .

24 . The Court considers that the case was not particularly complex, either factually or legally. Moreover, t he Court is not persuaded by the Government ' s argument that the applicant should be reproached for having appealed against unfavourable judgments, the more so since three of her four appeals were upheld by the higher courts. As regards the conduct of the domestic judicial authorities, the Court notes that the protracted length of the proceedings was mainly due to the repetitive re-examination of the case despite its relative simplicity .

25 . The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Pélissier and Sassi , cited above , Merit v. Ukraine , no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004 and Baglay v. Ukraine , no. 22431/02 , 8 November 2005 ).

26 . Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

27 . There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II . OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

28 . The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome and unfairness of the proceedings in her case.

29 . However, in the light of all the material s in its possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

30 . It follows that th i s part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

31 . 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 rep ara tion to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

32 . The applicant claimed UAH 25,000 [3] in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

33 . The Government contended that the applicant ' s claim was exorbitant and unsubstant iated.

34 . Having regard to the circumstances of the case, t he Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage .

B. Costs and expenses

35 . The applicant also claimed EUR 81 for the expenses incurred in the context of the proceedings before the Court.

36 . The Government contested the claim.

37 . According to the Court ' s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 81 .

C. Default interest

38 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant , within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 81 ( eighty one euros ) in respect of costs and expenses , to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement , plus any tax that may be chargeable;

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

4 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicant ' s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 6 July 2007 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Claudia Westerdiek P eer Lorenzen Registrar President

[1] . EUR 41

[2] . EUR 190.6 5

[3] . EUR 3,757