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 ALEKSANDR POPOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 38720/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 April
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 Aleksandr Popov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 38720/03) 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 a Russian national, Mr Aleksandr Viktorovich
Popov (“the applicant”), on 17 November 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
28 February 2005 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. On 4 May 2006 the Court put
additional questions to the parties.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1975 and lives in the town of Shakhty of the
Rostov Region.
A. Proceedings concerning payment of arrears and a
penalty
- In
the 1980s the applicant's father took part in the emergency operation
at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. Until March 1996
the Shakhty Town Social Security Service (hereafter - the Service)
made monthly payments to the father as a compensation for health
damage.
- After
the Service stopped payments, the father sued it for arrears and a
penalty. On 28 February 1997 the Shakhty Town Court awarded him
30,640,341 Russian roubles (“RUR”) in arrears and the
same amount as the penalty.
- On
24 April 1997 the arrears, but not the penalty, were paid.
- After
the father's death, on 26 March 1999 a notary public issued the
applicant with an inheritance certificate certifying his right to one
half of the penalty awarded by the judgment of 28 February 1997. The
applicant's grandmother was issued with a certificate confirming her
right to the second half of the penalty.
- As
the penalty had not been paid, the Shakhty Town Court, upon the
applicant's and his grandmother's request, ordered the following
increases of the penalty to take account of the inflation:
- in
the judgment of 14 February 2000, by RUR 57,165.71;
- in
the judgment of 13 August 2001, by RUR 29,764.6; and
- in
the judgment of 29 March 2002, by RUR 17,254.96.
Those
judgments were not appealed against and became final.
- On
30 May 2002 the Service paid the penalty in the original amount
established in the judgment of 28 February 1997, but not the
amounts awarded in the subsequent judgments.
- In
2003 the applicant and his grandmother asked the Shakhty Town Court
to reconfirm their right to the sums awarded by the judgments of
14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March 2002.
- On
14 March 2003 the Shakhty Town Court held that the applicant and his
grandmother each should receive RUR 52,092.63 (approximately 1,540
euros), representing one half of the amounts awarded by the judgments
of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March 2002. The
judgment of 14 March 2003 was not appealed against and became final.
- On
20 December 2004 the money due to the applicant and his grandmother
under the judgments of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March
2002, as pronounced by the judgment of 14 March 2003, were paid to
them in full.
B. Pension dispute concerning survivor's benefits
- On
11 May 2004 the Shakhty Town Court accepted the applicant's action
against the Service and awarded him a lump sum of RUR 22,341.78
in pension arrears for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 March
2004 and RUR 3,296.86 in monthly payments. On 26 July 2004 the Rostov
Regional Court upheld the judgment.
- Enforcement
proceedings were instituted and the Service began payment of the
monthly pension in the amount established by the judgment of 11 May
2004. The lump sum of pension arrears was not paid.
- On
30 June 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, upon an
application of the acting President of the Rostov Regional Court and
by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgments of 11 May and
26 July 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
- On
24 November 2005 the Shakhty Town Court granted the action and
awarded the applicant RUR 6,120.61 in monthly payments and
RUR 198,520.64 in pension arrears for the period from 1 July
2000 to 31 October 2005. On 13 February 2006 the Rostov Regional
Court, acting on appeal, increased monthly payments to RUR 7,118.91
and the lump sum of pension arrears to RUR 203,985.37.
- Enforcement
proceedings were instituted and the Service began payment of monthly
pension in the amount awarded by the judgment of 24 November
2005, as amended on 13 February 2006. In May 2006 the lump sum of
pension arrears was credited to the applicant's account.
C. Other proceedings against the Service
- On
11 and 29 June, 23 August and 22 September 2004 the Shakhty Town
Court accepted the applicant's actions against the Service for the
adjustment of various unrelated judgment awards made in his favour in
1997, 1999, 2000 and 2003 and awarded him RUR 720.5 (approximately
EUR 21), RUR 16,887.60 (approximately EUR 481), RUR 7,545.76
(approximately EUR 210), RUR 3,627.14 (approximately EUR 101) and RUR
14,475.70 (approximately EUR 403). The judgments were not appealed
against and became final.
- The
judgments were enforced in full on 2 November 2005 when the sums were
credited to the applicant's account.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF PROTRACTED NON-ENFORCEMENT
OF THE JUDGMENTS OF 14 FEBRUARY 2000, 13 AUGUST 2001, 29 MARCH 2002,
14 MARCH 2003, 11 AND 29 JUNE, 23 AUGUST AND 22 SEPTEMBER
2004
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the final judgments of 14 February
2000, 13 August 2001, 29 March 2002, 14 March 2003, 11 and 29
June, 23 August and 22 September 2004 had not been enforced in
good time. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be
examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002 III). The relevant
parts of these provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time... 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...”
A. Admissibility
- The Government informed the Court that the Service had
attempted to secure a friendly settlement which the applicant had
refused to accept. Referring to that refusal, to the fact that the
judgments in the applicant's favour had been fully enforced, and to
the Court's decision in the case of Aleksentseva and Others v.
Russia (nos. 75025/01 et seq., 4 September 2003), the
Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its
list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
- The applicant disagreed with the Government. He
claimed that the Government had not offered compensation for the loss
of the value of the judgment debts. The sum offered had not covered
the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage he had sustained due to
protracted non-enforcement of the judgments.
- The
Court observes that it has already on a number of occasions examined
the same argument by the Russian Government and rejected it (see
Silchenko v. Russia, no. 32786/03, §§ 33-37, 28
September 2006; Kazartsev v. Russia, no. 26410/02, §§
11-15, 2 November 2006, etc.). The Court does not find any reason to
depart from that finding in the present case and dismisses the
Government's request to strike the application out under Article 37
of the Convention.
- The
Court notes that the complaint 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
Government claimed that the judgments had remained unenforced because
it had taken the debtor, a State body, “a certain period of
time for performance of the procedures... for unconditional financial
maintenance of execution of such judicial decisions”.
- The
applicant maintained his complaints.
- The
Court observes that on 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and
29 March 2002 the applicant obtained judgments in his favour by
which he was to be paid certain sums of money by the Shakhty Town
Social Security Service, a State body. The judgments were not
appealed against and became final and enforceable. On 14 March 2003
the Shakhty Town Court, by the final judgment, confirmed the
applicant's right to receive the money under the abovementioned
judgments. The judgments of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and
29 March 2002, as pronounced on 14 March 2003, were fully
enforced on 20 December 2004 when the sums were credited to the
applicant's account. Thus, the judgments remained unenforced for
several years.
- The
Court further notes that on 11 and 29 June, 23 August and
22 September 2004 the Shakhty Town Court issued judgments in the
applicant's favour by which the Service was to pay the applicant
certain sums of money. The judgments were not appealed against,
became final and were enforced on 2 November 2005. Thus, those
judgments remained unenforced for more than a year.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues
similar to the ones in the present case (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 19 et seq., ECHR 2002 III;
Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; Gerasimova v. Russia,
no. 24669/02, § 17 et seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
The Court finds that by failing for years to comply with the
enforceable judgments in the applicant's favour the domestic
authorities impaired the essence of his right to a court and
prevented him from receiving the money he had legitimately expected
to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT OF 11 MAY 2004
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment
of 11 May 2004, as upheld on 26 July 2004. The Court considers that
this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of
these provisions are cited above.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the complaint 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
1. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
- The
Government submitted that the judgment of 11 May 2004, as upheld on
26 July 2004, could not be enforced because it had been quashed by
way of supervisory review.
- The
applicant maintained his claims.
- Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that on 11 May
2004 the applicant obtained a judgment by which the Service was to
pay him monthly pension and a certain sum of money in pension
arrears. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 26 July 2004 and became
enforceable on that date. From that moment on, it was incumbent on
the Service, a State body, to comply with it. The Service began
payment of monthly pension in the amount awarded under the judgment
of 11 May 2004. However, no attempts were made to pay the lump sum in
pension arrears. On 30 June 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional
Court quashed the judgments of 11 May and 26 July 2004 and remitted
the case for a fresh examination. On 24 November 2005 the applicant
obtained a new judgment by which the Service was to pay him a higher
monthly pension and a lump sum in pension arrears for a longer
period. The judgment of 24 November 2005 was amended on appeal on 13
February 2006.
- It
follows that at least from 26 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 the judgment
of 11 May 2004 was enforceable and it was incumbent on the Service to
abide by its terms.
- The
Government cited the quashing of the judgment of 11 May 2004 as the
sole reason for its non-enforcement. In this respect, the Court
reiterates that it has recently addressed and dismissed the same
argument by the Government in the cases of Sukhobokov v. Russia
(no. 75470/01, 13 April 2006) and Velskaya v. Russia (no.
21769/03, 5 October 2006). In particular, the Court held that “the
quashing of the judgment, which did not respect the principle of
legal certainty and the applicant's “right to a court”,
cannot be accepted as a reason to justify the non-enforcement of the
judgment” (see Sukhobokov, cited above, § 26; and
Velskaya, cited above, § 19).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government did not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present
case. The Government did not advance any other justification for the
failure to enforce the judgment of 11 May 2004, as upheld on appeal
on 26 July 2004. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see
Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR
2002 III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina
v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v.
Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds that by
failing to comply with the judgment of 11 May 2004 in the
applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated his right to a
court.
- The
Court finds accordingly that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment
of 11 May 2004.
2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
- The
Court notes that on 11 May 2004 the Shakhty Town Court awarded the
applicant RUR 22,341.78 in pension arrears for the period from 1
January 2002 to 31 March 2004 and RUR 3,296.86 in monthly payments.
As a result of the proceedings following the supervisory review, on
13 February 2006 the Rostov Regional Court, in the final
instance, awarded the applicant RUR 7,118.91 in monthly payments and
the lump sum of RUR 203,985.37 in pension arrears for the period from
1 July 2000 to 31 October 2005. The Court notes that the amount
of arrears awarded by the judgment of 13 February 2006 related to a
longer period than the amount awarded on 11 May 2004. At the same
time, the amount of monthly benefits awarded by the judgment of 13
February 2006 exceeded the one awarded by the judgment of 11 May
2004.
- Therefore,
the award the applicant obtained as a result of the proceedings
following the supervisory review exceeded the one under the initial
judgment of 11 May 2004. The Court also does not lose sight of the
fact that the final judgment of 13 February 2006 was enforced in full
without undue delay, in May 2006.
- In
the circumstances of the present case, the Court does not consider it
necessary to rule on the question where there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (cf. Zasurtsev v. Russia, no.
67051/01, §§ 53-55, 27 April 2006).
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
in his observations submitted on 18 November 2006 the applicant
complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention that he was
discriminated against by the domestic authorities and that the
proceedings in the pension dispute were extremely long.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within its competence ratione materiae, the
Court finds that they 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 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. 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
applicant claimed RUR 149,572 in respect of pecuniary damage, of
which RUR 22,342 represented the award due to the applicant under the
judgment of 11 May 2004 and RUR 127,230 represented inflation losses
resulting from the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment awards and
interest on those awards at the marginal interest rate of the Russian
Central Bank. The applicant further claimed EUR 28,667 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic
remedies in respect of his claims for compensation for inflation
losses. As to the claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage, they
were unsubstantiated and unreasonable.
- The
Court reiterates, firstly, that an applicant cannot be required to
exhaust domestic remedies to obtain compensation for pecuniary loss
since this would prolong the procedure before the Court in a manner
incompatible with the effective protection of human rights (see
Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), judgment
of 31 October 1995, Series A no. 330-B, § 40, and
Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
Nor is there a requirement that an applicant furnish any proof of the
non-pecuniary damage he or she sustained.
- As
regards the applicant's claim in respect of the judgment award made
on 11 May 2004, the Court observes that that on 13 February
2006, by the final judgment, the applicant was awarded pension
arrears, including those for the period covered by the judgment of 11
May 2004. That sum was paid to the applicant in May 2006. Thus, the
Court dismisses the applicant's claim under this head. As regards the
remaining claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court observes
that in the present case it has found a violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the
awards in the applicant's favour had not been paid to him in good
time. It recalls that the adequacy of the compensation would be
diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various
circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay
in enforcement (see Gizzatova v. Russia,
no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005; Metaxas v.
Greece, no. 8415/02, § 36, 27 May 2004). Having
regard to the materials in its possession and the fact that the
Government did not furnish any objection to the applicant's method of
calculation of compensation, the Court awards the applicant RUR
127,230 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable.
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce the judgments in his favour. The Court takes into
account the relevant aspects, such as the length of the enforcement
proceedings and the nature of the awards, and making its assessment
on an equitable basis, awards the 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
applicant also claimed EUR 100 and RUR 1,223.30 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the Court, of which RUR 1,223.30 represented
postal expenses and expenses for preparation of documents and EUR 100
represented expenses for presentation of his case before the Court
without legal assistance.
- The
Government argued that RUR 1,223.30 should only be granted to the
applicant because those expenses were reasonable.
- According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is
entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as
it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes that the
applicant was not represented in the Strasbourg proceedings. However,
he must have incurred expenses in providing his written pleadings
(see Lauko v. Slovakia, judgment of 2 September 1998,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VI, § 75).
The Court further observes that the applicant provided receipts and
vouchers to substantiate his expenses for preparation of documents
and sending them to the Court. Regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 135 covering costs under all
heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
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 complaints concerning the
non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the
protracted non-enforcement of the judgments of 14 February 2000,
13 August 2001, 29 March 2002, 14 March 2003, 11 and 29
June, 23 August and 22 September 2004;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment
of 11 May 2004;
- Holds that there is no need to examine the
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the
non-enforcement of the judgment of 11 May 2004;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted, where appropriate, into Russian roubles at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) RUR
127,230 (one hundred twenty-seven thousand two hundred and thirty
Russian roubles) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
3,900 (three thousand and nine hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 135
(one hundred and thirty-five euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iv) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 April 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President