FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4761/08
Sergiy Oleksiyovych KOVALENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 March 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
André Potocki,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 January 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergiy Oleksiyovych Kovalenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Kyyiv.
The Ukrainian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained inter alia under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings.
The part of the application concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings before the domestic courts was communicated to the Government.
On 1 February 2011 the Government made a unilateral declaration. The applicant was invited to submit his comments on the Government's unilateral declaration by 26 April 2011.
On 25 April 2011 the applicant submitted his comments to the Government's proposal rejecting it.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 June 1998, while driving a car, the applicant was involved in a traffic accident which caused bodily injuries.
On 22 December 2000 the applicant lodged a claim against the car manufacturer and its representative in Ukraine, seeking damages.
On 23 February 2006 the Zaliznychnyy District Court of Simferopol partly allowed the applicant's claim and awarded him pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Both parties appealed.
On 21 April 2006 the Crimean Court of Appeal declared the case ready for examination on the merits. The next hearing of the case was scheduled for 28 August 2006.
On 28 August 2006 the Crimean Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first instance court and rejected the claim of the applicant as unsubstantiated.
On 5 July 2007 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal, acting as court of cassation, rejected the appeal in cassation of the applicant as unsubstantiated. The decision could not be appealed and became final.
By a letter send on 10 July 2007 the applicant was informed about the final ruling of the court of cassation.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Crimean Court of Appeal were too speedy and thus in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Under the same provision of the Convention the applicant also complained that the trial of his case was not fair, the court was not impartial and not independent.
Referring to Articles 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant further complained that the refusal to award him damages deprived him of property and infringed the positive obligations of the State under Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings complaint
The Court notes that the applicant's first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 22 December 2000 and ended on 10 July 2007 with the judgment of the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal. They therefore lasted 6 years and 6 months.
The part of the application concerning the length of the civil proceedings before the domestic courts had been communicated to the Government on the basis that this had been excessively long.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement the Government made a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
By a letter of 25 April 2011 the applicant rejected the conditions of the unilateral declaration pointing out that he did not complain about the excessive length of the proceedings before the domestic courts (see § 5 of the letter). According to the applicant the examination of his case by the Crimean Court of Appeal was in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as it had been too quick (April-August 2006)
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 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".
Having regard to the true nature of the applicant's complaint (specified in his letter of 25 April 2011) the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the part of the application that deals with the excessive length of the civil proceedings before the domestic courts (Article 37 § 1(c)).
B. Other complaints
The Court further notes that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, all the other complaints of the applicant 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 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons
, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings before the domestic courts.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen Phillips Angelika Nußberger
Deputy Registrar President