[ad_1]
The ECtHR delivered a judgment in the case of Kiryanenko v. Turkey (no. Latvia, recognizing unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a trial fair. In September, the TCE complained in domestic courts of a nine-year dispute over the appointment of the applicant's disability group. The woman had claimed compensation of EUR 4015.50 for the material damage caused by the loss of income as well as the procedural costs and costs of EUR 1400.
The European Court of Human Rights emphasizes first of all that the length of the proceedings must be calculated before the case is examined in court. The ECHR stresses that, in this case, the start of the probationary period is November 9, 2001, when VDEAC refused to extend the applicant 's invalidity. The proceedings in the plaintiff's case expired on March 14, 2011, with the final judgment of the Supreme Court. The total length of the proceedings was therefore more than nine years, during which the applicant's case was examined in three trials, including the cbadation of the decisions of the appellate body before a new case. hearing.
The ECHR stresses that the two proceedings were interconnected
The duration of each trial must be badessed in the light of the facts of the case and the ECtHR explains the complexity of the case, the conduct the applicant and the competent authorities and the interests involved. The Court recalled that this case concerned the applicant's invalidity status, which gave entitlement to certain social security benefits and an invalidity pension, and that this decision would therefore be admissible in good time
. "The ECHR stresses that it has already repeatedly established the right to a fair trial in similar cases in Latvia, although the Court has acknowledged that in this case the dispute has also persisted. as a result of the applicant's own fault, the Court nevertheless concluded that the proceedings had been excessively long and had not been dealt with within a "reasonable time".
The ECHR also rejected the argument of the Government, the applicant having not exercised his right to complain about the length of the proceedings before the ordinary court, Referring to the case against Latvia, also in the Kiryanenko case Latvia, the ECHR stresses that the example of the judicial practice provided by the Government is not sufficient to establish that the applicant could actually use the remedy provided for in Article 92 of the Satversme. for the period after 11 April 201 3, almost two years after the applicant 's final decision in the case.
Therefore, the ECT sees this example of the possibility of an appeal to a court of general jurisdiction unable to give evidence of sufficiently clear case law.
These findings were sufficient for the European Court of Human Rights to establish that there has been a violation of the right to a fair trial. The court dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation for material and legal costs, while awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage of 2,700 euros.
[ad_2]
Source link
