BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ARAPOVY v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 16115/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29
November 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Arapovy v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr A. Wampach, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 16115/06) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mrs Valentina
Mikhaylovna Arapova and Mr Nikolay Stepanovich Arapov (“the
applicants”), on 10 March 2006.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr I. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practising
in Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented at the material time by Mr P. Laptev, Representative
of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
29 August 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The
applicants were born in 1929. Mrs Arapova died in 2006. Mr Arapov
lives in Voronezh. He decided to pursue the application of his late
wife Mrs Arapova.
- From
April 1998 to April 1999 the applicants received their old-age
pensions, totalling approximately 377 and 430 Russian roubles (RUB)
per month, several months in arrears.
- On
14 July 2000 each applicant lodged an action against the Sovetskiy
District Social Security Authority of Voronezh for index-linking of
their delayed pension payments in line with inflation.
- On
1 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh granted the
applicants' claims and awarded the applicants RUB 977.50
(Mrs Arapova) and RUB 1,117.61 (Mr Arapov). Both judgments came
into force on 12 November 2000.
- The
District Court issued writs of execution and forwarded them to the
Sovetskiy District Bailiff's Service of Voronezh for execution.
- In
April 2001 the Bailiff's Service returned the writs of execution to
the applicants advising them to apply to the local office of the
Federal Treasury. The Treasury refused to execute the judgments.
- In
2001-2003 the applicants applied to the Bailiff's Service on numerous
occasions. The Bailiff's Service refused to accept the writs of
execution because the defendant did not have funds.
- It
was not before November 2005 that the writs of execution were
accepted for payment by the Sovetskiy District Social Security
Authority of Voronezh.
- The
money awarded by the judgments was transferred to the applicants'
bank accounts on 2 December 2005, and received by the applicants on 5
December 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The applicants complained about the long
non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour. They relied
on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1, which, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by
[a] ... tribunal...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the long
non enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour
between 12 November 2000 and 2 December 2005.
- The
applicants maintained their complaints. They noted that the money
awarded by the judgments lost a significant part of its value having
been paid after a long delay.
- The Court notes that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court first notes that the judgments in the applicants' favour, which
came into force on 12 November 2000, remained without enforcement
until 2 December 2005, i.e. for the period of more than five years.
- The Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in many cases
raising issues similar to the ones in the
present case (see Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III; and, more recently, Kazartsev
v. Russia, no. 26410/02, 2 November 2006).
- Having
noted the Government's acknowledgement that there had been a
violation of the said Convention provisions and in view of its
case law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing for
such a substantial period to comply with the enforceable judgments in
the applicants' favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence
of their right to a court and prevented them from receiving the money
which they were entitled to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of both
applicants.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicants each claimed 3,900 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government found the claims excessive.
- The
Court considers that the applicants must have suffered certain
distress and frustration as a result of the violations at issue. It
takes into account the relevant aspects, in particular, the length of
the enforcement and the fact that the nature of the award in the
present case was connected to the applicants' livelihood. Making its
assessment on equitable basis, it grants the applicants' claims and
awards each applicant EUR 3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants did not seek reimbursement of their costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. Accordingly,
the Court does not make any award under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the second applicant Mr N.S. Arapov,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the total
of EUR 7,800 (seven thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of
non pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency
of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Loukis Loucaides
Deputy Registrar President
