[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KLETSOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 24842/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 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 Kletsova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E.
Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 March 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 24842/04) 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, Ms Anna Grigoryevna
Kletsova (“the applicant”), on 31 May 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European
Court of Human Rights.
- On
22 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.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kamyshin,
the Volgograd Region.
1. Proceedings concerning compensation for defamation
- On
26 July 2000 the Kamyshin Town Court of the Volgograd Region (“the
Kamyshin Town Court”) allowed the applicant's civil claim for
defamation against the Prosecutor's Office of the Volgograd Region
and awarded her 300 Russian roubles (“RUR”). The award
was payable by the Treasury of the Russian Federation. The judgment
was not appealed against and became enforceable on 7 August 2000.
- On
28 August 2000 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the
bailiffs' service.
- On 30 August 2000 the bailiffs' service returned the
writ of execution to the court because it did not have the debtor's
address. It asked the court to re-submit a corrected version within
ten days.
- On
10 September 2000 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement
proceedings because the writ of execution had not been re-submitted.
- On
3 October 2000 the applicant was told that the writ had been returned
to the court on 30 August 2000.
- On 20 November 2003, following the applicant's
request, the bailiffs' service informed her of the decision of 10
September 2000 to discontinue the enforcement proceedings.
- On 15 April 2005 the amount of RUR 300 was transferred
into the applicant's account.
2. Proceedings concerning maintenance works in the
applicant's flat
- On
25 June 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 14th Court
Circuit of the Kamyshinskiy District of the Volgograd Region partly
allowed the applicant's civil action against the municipal housing
maintenance enterprise of Kamyshin (муниципальное
предприятие
“Жилищное
управление“
г. Камышина).
It ordered that the municipal enterprise should perform certain
maintenance works in the applicant's room within ten days after the
judgment becomes final. In particular, it should repair and whitewash
the ceiling and paint the floor. The court also awarded the applicant
RUR 200 for non-pecuniary damage.
- On
12 September 2003 the Kamyshin Town Court upheld the judgment on
appeal; the judgment became enforceable.
- The
municipal enterprise performed the maintenance works in accordance
with the judgment but did not pay the monetary award.
- On
15 June 2004 the Commercial Court of the Volgograd Region initiated
insolvency proceedings against the debtor.
- On 6 August 2004 the court issued a new writ of
execution and sent it to the bailiffs' service. Enforcement
proceedings commenced and the applicant's name was placed on the list
of creditors in the insolvency proceedings.
- By a letter of 9 August 2004, the President of the
Kamyshin Town Court informed the applicant that in September 2003 the
writ of execution had been handed over to a bailiff who had
subsequently lost it.
- On 15 April 2005 the municipal enterprise transferred
the amount of RUR 200 into the applicant's account.
- On
16 September 2005 the amount of RUR 5 charged by the bank for the
transfers (see paragraphs 11 and 18 above) was reimbursed to the
applicant.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of
the judgments of 26 July 2000 and 25 June 2003 in her favour. 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 read 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
- As regards the proceedings concerning compensation for
defamation the Government contended that the applicant had failed to
submit the writ of execution of the judgment of 26 July 2000 directly
to the Ministry of Finance and therefore had not exhausted domestic
remedies available to her under Russian law. Furthermore, the
Government claimed that it had been open to the applicant to
re-submit the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service.
- The
Court notes that the enforceability of the judgment of 26 July 2000
against the Prosecutor's Office of the Volgograd Region has not been
disputed. The Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an
enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful
litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in
order to have it executed (see Metaxas v. Greece,
no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004). After a
competent State agency was served with a judgment, recourse by the
applicant to another State agency should not in principle be
necessary to secure its enforcement. The Court considers that in the
present case recourse to the bailiff service or to the Ministry of
Finance would only have produced repetitive results and could not be
said to have constituted an effective remedy against the
non enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis, Yavorivskaya
v. Russia (dec.), no. 34687/02, 15 May 2004, and Jasiūnienė
v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 41510/98, 24 October 2000).
- For
the above reasons, the Court finds that the application cannot
be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It concludes
that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning
of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other
ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
B. Merits
- As
regards the proceedings against the municipal maintenance enterprise,
the Government submitted that the amount awarded by the judgment of
25 June 2003, as upheld on 12 September 2003, was not paid in good
time because the bailiffs only received the writ of execution on 6
August 2004. By that date the insolvency proceedings against the
municipal enterprise had been opened, and the payment under the
judgment was made in the order of priority established by Russian law
for creditors in insolvency proceedings. The Government did not put
forward any arguments to justify the delay in the enforcement of the
judgment of 26 July 2000 other than those examined by the
Court above (see paragraph 21 et seq.).
- The
applicant insisted that the delay in the enforcement of the judgments
in her favour was attributable to the Government.
- The
Court recalls that the judgments were enforced on 15 April 2005.
Thus, the execution of the judgment of 26 July 2000 took more than
four and a half years and the execution of the judgment of 25 June
2003, as upheld on 12 September 2003, took approximately one year and
seven months.
- 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, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III; Gerasimova v.
Russia, no. 24669/02, §§ 14-22 and Gizzatova v.
Russia, no. 5124/03, 13 January 2005, §§
18-29).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it in respect of the judgment of
26 July 2000, the Court considers that the Government have not put
forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a
different conclusion in the present case.
- As
regards the judgment of 25 June 2003, the Court notes that the
Government have not suggested that the municipal enterprise enjoyed
such institutional and operational independence from the State that
it would absolve the latter from responsibility under the Convention
for its acts and omissions (see Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine,
nos. 35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02,
35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 41-46, ECHR
2004 XII; and Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02,
§§ 17-20, 4 April 2006).
- Furthermore,
as regards the insolvency proceedings against the municipal
enterprise, which allegedly prevented the national authorities from
enforcing the judgment of 25 June 2003, as upheld on 12 September
2003, in good time, the Court reiterates that it is not open
to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources as
an excuse for not honouring a court award (see, mutatis mutandis,
Burdov, cited above, § 35). The applicant should not
be prevented from benefiting from the success of the litigation on
the ground of alleged financial difficulties experienced by the State
(see Burdov, cited above, § 35). Accordingly, also in
respect of this judgment, the Court does not find any reason to
deviate from its established case-law.
- The
Court finds, therefore, that by failing for a considerable period of
time to comply with the enforceable judgments in the applicant's
favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of her right to
a court and prevented her from receiving the money she had reasonably
expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also invoked Article 17 of the Convention referring to the
fact that the Government excessively limited her right to access to a
court.
- Having
regard to its above finding in respect of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the Court does not find that any
separate issue arises under Article 17 of the Convention. It
therefore rejects this part of the application under Article 35 §
4 of the Convention.
III. 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 500,000 euros (“EUR”) in respect of
pecuniary damage and EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that no just satisfaction should be paid to the
applicant as the judgments concerned small amounts and were not
connected to the applicant's livelihood.
- The
Court observes that the applicant did not substantiate her claim for
pecuniary damage. The Court accordingly rejects this claim.
- Having regard to the nature of the breach in this case
and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considers
that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating
to the proceedings before the domestic courts or the Convention
organs and this is not a matter which the Court has to examine of its
own motion (see Motière v. France, no. 39615/98, §
26, 5 December 2000).
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 admissible the applicant's complaints
about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 26 July 2000 and 25
June 2003, as upheld on 12 September 2003, and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds that the finding of a violation
constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the
non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
- Dismisses the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Loukis Loucaides
Registrar President
