CASE OF KIISA v. ESTONIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)
Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev
4. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Tallinn. 5. On 10 October 2003 the applicant lodged an action with the Harju County Court (previously named the Tallinn City Court) for divorce and division of joint property including a number of real estates and shares of companies. 6. The defendant submitted his arguments to the court on 15 January 2004. 7. A preliminary hearing took place on 20 April 2004. An adjournment was requested because of the illness of the defendant’s lawyer. The applicant submitted a request concerning new evidence and interim measures. 8. On 9 November 2004 a preliminary hearing took place. The applicant submitted that she intended to supplement her action. 9. On 20 December 2004 the applicant submitted new arguments and a request concerning new evidence. On 5 January 2005 the defendant replied. 10. On 7 April 2005 a preliminary hearing took place. 11. On 22 August 2005 the applicant submitted a number of procedural objections and requests concerning new evidence, including a request to appoint an expert. On 2 September 2005 she requested to stay the proceedings. 12. On 13 September 2005 a preliminary hearing took place. As the defendant had failed to appear at the hearing, the examination of the case was adjourned. 13. On 25 October 2005 the defendant submitted additional evidence. On 11 November 2005 the applicant replied, submitted new arguments and a request concerning new evidence. On 11 January 2006 the defendant made further submissions. 14. On 17 January 2006 a preliminary hearing took place. 15. On 31 March and 24 August 2006 the applicant submitted new evidence, arguments and requests concerning new evidence, including a request to appoint an expert, and supplemented her action. 16. On 5 September 2006 a hearing took place. The applicant requested ordering an expert assessment. She had not yet submitted the list of the joint property, information about its value and relevant proof. The applicant objected to the defendant’s request that a partial judgment in respect of divorce be made. 17. On 15 September 2006 the Harju County Court delivered a partial judgment divorcing the marriage. The applicant appealed. 18. On 25 September 2006 she submitted a request for the removal of the judge and requests concerning new evidence. 19. On 7 May 2007 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 25 July 2007 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. 20. On 20 December 2007 the applicant submitted a complete version of her claims that had been requested by the County Court since she had previously made numerous amendments to her initial claims. She also made a request concerning new evidence and an expert assessment. In the months to follow, written submissions were exchanged between the parties. 21. On 11 July 2008 the applicant submitted new arguments and requests concerning new evidence. 22. On 18 September 2008 the County Court ruled on an advance payment concerning an expert assessment. 23. On 10 October 2008 the applicant requested an interim judgment for the establishment of joint property. The defendant agreed. On 17 November 2008 the County Court requested the parties to submit the lists of property. 24. In April 2009 the parties exchanged submissions concerning the court expenses and the court ordered the parties to submit any unsubmitted evidence. 25. On 26 June 2009 the Harju County Court delivered an interim judgment on the composition of the joint property. Both the applicant and the defendant appealed. In September 2009 and January 2010 the parties exchanged submissions. 26. On 27 January 2010 a hearing took place before the Tallinn Court of Appeal which, on 16 February 2010, delivered a judgment partially granting the defendant’s appeal. Both parties lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court in respect of the partial judgment. 27. On 31 May 2010 the Supreme Court refused the parties leave to appeal and the partial judgment became final. 28. On 18 August 2010 the applicant supplemented her action and applied for interim measures. 29. On 19 August 2010 the County Court applied interim measures. 30. On 17 November 2010 the County Court ordered the applicant to make an advance payment related to expert assessments. On 21 December 2010 it ordered the assessments. 31. On 14 January 2011 the applicant submitted objections to the activities of the court, supplemented her action and submitted new evidence. 32. On 1 February 2011 the court warned the parties that they would be fined in case of failure to submit the required information to the experts. On 3 February 2011 the applicant submitted objections to the activities of the court and requested the removal of the expert. On 11 March 2011 the County Court dismissed the removal request. 33. On 3 May 2011 the County Court ordered the defendant to present the required documents to the expert. 34. On 9 May 2011 the applicant submitted an additional opinion and again requested the removal of the expert. The request was dismissed on 17 May 2011. 35. In May, August and September 2011 the County Court received expert assessments concerning the value of a number of real estates and of the shares of a company. 36. In September and November 2011 the parties exchanged proposals and submissions on the division of the property. 37. On 24 November 2011 the applicant requested the removal of the judge responsible for the case. This request was dismissed. 38. In December 2011 the applicant made further submissions and a request concerning new evidence. She also filed an objection to the court’s activities. 39. On 6 February 2012 the court dismissed the request concerning new evidence. The applicant filed an objection. 40. At a hearing of 8 March 2012 experts were heard. The applicant stated that she did not accuse the court or the defendant for the length of the proceedings and requested an adjournment of the hearing as she wished to obtain an estimation of the value of the forest on one of the real estates. The hearing was adjourned. 41. On 19 March 2012 the applicant submitted new requests concerning the real estate. On 21 May 2012 the court dismissed these requests and ordered the defendant to submit an estimation. The defendant requested an extension. 42. On 21 June 2012 the applicant submitted a supplementary opinion. 43. On 16 October 2012 the applicant submitted new requests. 44. A hearing was held on 15 November 2012. 45. On 21 January 2013 the Harju County Court made a judgment on the merits concerning the division of the joint property. Both parties appealed. 46. In March 2013 the parties exchanged submissions. 47. On 30 April 2013 the Tallinn Court of Appeal delivered a judgment. It partly granted the applicant’s appeal, dismissed the defendant’s appeal and partly amended the County Court’s judgment. Both parties lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. 48. On 1 August 2013 the Supreme Court refused the parties leave to appeal.