CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 septembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7D73FE43 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB81E279F { width:179.94pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 6922/06 by Valentina Vasilyevna SELIVANOVA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27   September 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 January 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Valentina Vasilyevna Selivanova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Torez. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   First set of proceedings On 1 August 2000 the applicant instituted non-contentious proceedings in the Torez Court against the State Pension Fund seeking pension recalculation and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Following several reconsiderations of the case, on 26 October 2001 the court left the applicant’s complaint without examination and explained to her that she could institute contentious proceedings on the same matter. That decision was not appealed against and became final. Second set of proceedings On 6 November 2001 the applicant instituted contentious proceedings in the Torez Court against the State Pension Fund seeking recalculation of her pension and recovery of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 22 March 2002 the court found in part for the applicant. On 18 July 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first instance court. On 14 October 2003 the court found in part for the applicant. On 11 December 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 29 January 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 23 September 2005 the Supreme Court transferred the applicant’s case to the Higher Administrative Court for consideration. On 26 September 2007 the Higher Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation. Third set of proceedings The applicant stated that she could not recover the deposit which had made with the Ukraine Savings Bank. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of both sets of proceedings, alleging that they were to be examined as a single set of proceedings. She also complained under Articles   6 § 1, 13 and 17 of the Convention about the outcome of both sets of proceedings, alleging that the courts had misinterpreted fact and had wrongly applied the law. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 on account of the outcome of the proceedings. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that she could not recover her deposit. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained about the length of both sets of proceedings and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Government submitted that the complaint in respect of the first set of proceedings had been lodged out of time. They further contended that the length of those proceedings had not breached the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6   §   1. As regards the second set of proceedings, the Government submitted that there had been no delays attributable to the domestic authorities, while some protraction of the proceedings had been due to the conduct of the parties and the complexity of the case. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaints concern two separate sets of proceedings, which, although concerned similar matters, did not constitute an integral process of determination of the applicant’s pension claims. Therefore it will examine each of the sets separately. The first set of proceedings had lasted until 26 October 2001, while the application was introduced on 27 January 2006. Thus the complaint in respect of the length of those proceedings must be rejected as lodged out of time in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the second set of proceedings, the period to be taken into consideration began in November 2001 and ended in September 2007. It thus lasted for about five years and ten months before the courts of three instances. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the overall duration of these proceedings did not in itself exceed what may be considered “reasonable”. It follows that the complaint about the length of the second set of proceedings is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 (a) and   4 of the Convention. 2.     The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 17 of the Convention about the outcome of both sets of proceedings. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the outcome of the proceedings. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that she could not recover her deposit. Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Stephen Phillips   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar   President