[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SOMCHENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 33986/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31 July
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 Somchenko 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 10 July 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 33986/02) 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, Mrs Marina Vasilyevna
Somchenko (“the applicant”), on 10 August 2002.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the
belated enforcement of several judgments in her favour.
- On
4 November 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
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Volgograd, the
Volgograd Region.
1. Judgments in the applicant's favour between 1999 and
2001
- The
applicant brought court proceedings claiming an increase in the
monthly disability allowance she was entitled to receive. On 24 May
1999 the Kirovskiy District Court of Volgograd awarded the applicant
21,245.46 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears and increased the
allowance to RUR 1,214 as of 1 May 1999.
- On
15 June 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 91,039.35
as compensation for late payment of the allowance. On 1 September
2000 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court reduced that
amount to RUR 1,500. On 29 January 2001 the
District Court awarded the applicant RUR 1,790.17 as
compensation for the depreciation of the award under the judgment of
24 May 1999 due to inflation.
- On
13 June 2001 the District Court increased the monthly allowance
to RUR 4,070.89 as of 10 January 2001 and awarded the
applicant RUR 20,538.16 in allowance arrears for the period from
1 July 2000 to 31 May 2001, and RUR 2,000 as compensation
for late payment of that increased allowance.
- The
above-mentioned judgments were enforced on 25 December 2002.
2. Other judgments
- On
20 February 2002 the District Court adjusted the allowance
amount due to the applicant and awarded her RUR 10,162.80.
- On
16 July 2003 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 11,104
in arrears for the period from 15 February 2002 to 30 June
2003 and increased the monthly allowance to RUR 3,175 effective
as of 1 July 2003. On 27 August 2003 the Volgograd Regional
Court upheld the judgment. On 2 September 2005 the Presidium of the
Volgograd Regional Court quashed those judgments.
- The
awards under the judgment of 20 February 2002 and that of 16 July
2003 were paid to the applicant on 22 November and 15 December 2005,
respectively.
- The
applicant brought civil proceedings claiming compensation for
depreciation of the awards under the judgments of 13 June 2001 and
20 February 2002. On 7 December 2005 the District Court
dismissed her claims. On 9 February 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court
quashed the judgment and ordered a re-examination of the case.
Apparently, the proceedings are pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the
judgments of 24 May 1999, 15 June 2000, 29 January and 13 June 2001,
20 February 2002 and 16 July 2003 had not been enforced in good
time. The Court considers that this complaint is 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 invited the Court to strike out the
application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention,
referring to the applicant's refusal to accept a friendly settlement
and to the fact that the judgments in the her favour had been
enforced. The Government also claimed that the applicant was no
longer a “victim” of the alleged violation for the same
reasons.
- 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). The Court does not find any reason to depart
from that finding in the present case and rejects the Government's
request to strike the application out under Article 37 of the
Convention.
- As to the Government's argument that the judgments in
question had already been enforced, the Court considers that the mere
fact that the authorities complied with the judgments after
substantial delays cannot be viewed in this case as automatically
depriving the applicant of her status as a “victim” under
the Convention (see, among others, Petrushko v. Russia,
no. 36494/02, § 16, 24 February 2005). The Court
observes that after the authorities' failure to comply with the
judgment of 24 May 1999, the applicant brought new successful
proceedings seeking damages (see paragraph 7 above). Those decisions,
had they been duly enforced, could arguably have constituted a remedy
against the State's previous failure to comply with the judgment (see
Petrushko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 15-16;
compare Derkach v. Russia (dec.), no. 3352/05, 3 May
2007). However, the new judgments remained without enforcement for
long periods of time. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the
Government's argument that the applicant is no longer a “victim”
of the alleged violation.
- 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
Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant's rights under
the Convention due to the delayed enforcement of the judgments in her
favour.
- The
applicant maintained her complaint.
- The
Court observes that between 1999 and 2003 the applicant obtained six
judgments in her favour by which she was to receive certain sums of
money from the State. However, the debts were paid with delays
varying from one year and five months to three years and nine 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, § 35, ECHR 2002 III.;
Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq.,
18 November 2004; and 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.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by
failing, for extended periods 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 could reasonably have expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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
applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contended that the Court could examine that claim only
after the final determination by the Russian courts of the
applicant's claims for compensation due to the depreciation of the
awards under the judgments of 13 June 2001 and 20 February 2002. In
any event, they considered that the amount claimed by the applicant
was excessive and unsubstantiated.
- The
Court observes that the proceedings referred to by the Government
have been pending since 2005 and no information about their eventual
outcome was presented to the Court. Besides, the Government did not
explain how the pecuniary claims at stake in those proceedings were
relevant to the applicant's claim for compensation of non-pecuniary
loss submitted to the Court. Consequently, the Government's argument
is dismissed. The Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress
because of the State authorities' failure to enforce in good time
several judgments in her favour. However, the amount claimed in
respect of non-pecuniary damage appears excessive. Having regard to
the number of the judgments and the length of the respective
enforcement proceedings, and deciding on an equitable basis, the
Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
29. In
her letter of 20 December 2005 the applicant claimed reimbursement of
costs and expenses incurred in relation to the lodging and
maintaining her application before the Court.
30. The
Court reiterates that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court a claim for
just satisfaction shall be specific, itemised and be submitted within
the time-limit fixed for the submission of the
applicant's observations on the merits unless the President of the
Chamber directs otherwise. If the
applicant fails to comply with those requirements, the Court may
reject the claims in whole or in part.
31. The
Court observes that the Government submitted their observations on
the present application on 6 February 2006. By letter of 10 February
2006 the applicant was invited to submit by 14 April 2006 her
observations in reply together with her claims for just satisfaction.
She was also informed that those claims had to be submitted in
compliance with Rule 60, even if the applicant had already indicated
her wishes concerning just satisfaction at an earlier stage of the
proceedings. Nevertheless, the applicant did not specify within the
above time-limit any claims for reimbursement of costs
and expenses. 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 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000
(three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Russian roubles 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 amount 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
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
