CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 janvier 2010

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 35064/04 by Gennadiy Nikiforovich TYURIN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21   January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 September 2004, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 29 July 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant's reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Gennadiy Nikiforovich Tyurin, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Saint Petersburg. The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 30 June 1997 the applicant brought a court action for compensation for health damage against a state-owned enterprise, an insurance company and Filial Agency no. 4 of the Murmansk Regional Department of the State Social Security Fund.   The court proceedings ended on 13 April 2005 when a judgment of 24 December 2004 of the Kalininskiy District Court of Saint Petersburg dismissing the applicant's claims was upheld on appeal and became final. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the court proceedings were unreasonably long and that the domestic courts refused to award him the sought compensation for health damage. THE LAW 1. The applicant complained of the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” On 29 July 2009 the Government submitted to the Court a unilateral declaration aimed at resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration reads as follows: “[T]he Russian authorities acknowledge the excessive duration of the civil proceedings in the applicant's case. The authorities are ready to pay the applicants ex gratia a sum of 3,600 EUR as just satisfaction. The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as 'any other reason' justifying the striking out of the case of the Court's list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay [these sums] within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on [them] from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”   In letters received by the Court on 3 August and 7 September 2009 the applicant stated that he would accept the sum mentioned, under the condition of receiving some additional compensation for damage the respondent State has allegedly done to him. The Court reiterates that under Article 37 of the Convention it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under (a), (b), or (c) of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.” Article 37 § 1 in fine states: “However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”   Having regard to the acknowledgement in the Government's declaration that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applicant's complaint of the length of the court proceedings. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application. Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.   2. The applicant further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the unfavourable outcome of the civil dispute. The Court reiterates that it is not its task under the Convention to act as a court of appeal, or a so-called court of fourth instance , where decisions taken by domestic courts may be contested. It is the role of the latter to apply the domestic law and assess the evidence before them (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22   April 1992, Series   A no.   235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16   December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, §   34). It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declarations in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President