CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 juillet 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFD69004D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 32254/03 by Lyubov Ivanovna BORDOKINA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 July 2007 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 regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, 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, Ms Lyubov Ivanovna Bordokina, is a Ukrainian national who lives in Molodogvardiysk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   Y.   Zaytsev, their Agent, and Mrs   I.   Shevchuk, Head of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights. In   July   1994 the applicant deposited 1,000,000 karbovantsi (around 30   ECU in the Ukrainian transitional currency) with the private commercial bank “Privatbank” (the “Bank”; Комерційний банк “Приватбанк” ) for a four-year term at an annual interest rate of 500%. At the end of the contract, the Bank paid the applicant 182 Ukrainian hryvnyas (about 0.70   ECU), referring to the introduction of the new hryvnya currency and a revision of interest rates as allowed by the contract between the parties. On 30 September 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk (the “District Court”; Ленінський районний суд м. Луганська ) seeking higher payment and damages. Subsequently, she amended her claims on one occasion. On 18   November   1998 the District Court ordered a financial expert assessment, which was received on 16   February   1999. On 18 March 1999 the District Court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant’s claims, finding that the Bank had acted in compliance with applicable law and the contract between the parties. The judgment became final. Unsatisfied with the outcome of her litigation, the applicant requested the authorities to re-open the proceedings by way of lodging a supervisory protest . On 19 April 2000 the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court (the “Regional Court;” Луганський обласний суд ) [1] quashed the judgment of 18   March   1999 following a protest introduced by its President and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the District Court. Between July and December 2000 the District Court held three hearings. On 14 December 2000 the District Court allowed the applicant’s amended claims, finding that the Bank had breached the contract. The Bank appealed in cassation. On 22 January 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 14   December   2000 and it became final. The Bank requested to re-open the proceedings by way of supervisory review. On 28 February 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the rulings of 14   December   2000 and 22   January   2001 following a protest lodged by its President and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. Between May and July   2001 the District Court scheduled three hearings, one of them being adjourned on account of the defendant’s absence. On 3 July 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The applicant appealed. On 3 September 2001 the Regional Court upheld this judgment on appeal. The applicant appealed in cassation. On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention about the excessive length of her civil proceedings and their alleged unfairness, in particular, errors of domestic judicial authorities in the assessment of facts and application of the law. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. She invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...” The proceedings at issue began on 30   September   1998 and ended on 23   April   2003. They therefore lasted before three levels of jurisdiction three years and five months, excluding the intervals between 18   March   1999 and 19   April   2000 and between 22   January and 28   February   2001, when no proceedings were pending (see e.g. Golovko   v. Ukraine , no.   39161/02, §   49, 1   February 2007). The Government submitted that there was no unreasonable delay in disposition of the applicant’s case. In particular, they noted that the matter before the courts concerned financial obligations taken by the Bank before the introduction of the Ukrainian hryvnya currency and was quite complex and that the applicant contributed to the duration of the proceedings by lodging appeals and amending her claims. The judicial authorities, on the other hand, scheduled hearings and examined the applicant’s claims without unreasonable protractions. The applicant contested this argument. The Court recalls that the “reasonable” length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent 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). The Court agrees with the Government that the matter was of some complexity; however, it notes that the case-file was not voluminous and that no witnesses were heard. The Court further finds that the Government can be held accountable for certain delays, particularly, the repetitive remittals of the case for a fresh consideration and the ultimate quashing of the final judgments, as well as a period of inactivity in considering the applicant’s appeal in cassation. However, the Court also recalls that the proceedings at issue concerned a small placement of money and that the applicant contributed to their duration, notably, by amending her claims and seeking supervisory review of a final judgment against her. The Court further notes that the duration of the proceedings as a whole did not exceed three years and five months, during which period the applicant’s claims were considered by three levels of jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the duration of the proceedings did not exceed what may still be considered “reasonable” (see e.g. Poltorachenko   v. Ukraine , no.   77317/01, §§   29-30, 18   January   2005 and Belukha   v. Ukraine , no.   33949/02, §§   66-67, 9   November   2006). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 2.     The applicant further complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention that the proceedings in her case were unfair, particularly, as the domestic judicial authorities erred in the assessment of the facts and application of the law. Having carefully examined the applicant’s submissions in the light of all the material in its possession and insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. Particularly, the Court reiterates that the applicant enjoyed the right to adversarial proceedings, she was able to introduce all necessary arguments defending her interests, and the judicial authorities gave them due consideration. It follows that this part of the application must likewise be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35   §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. 3.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President     [1] . Since July 2001, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal ( Апеляційний суд Луганської області ).