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 GLADYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 20430/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 February
2008
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 Gladyshev and Others v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis, President,
Loukis
Loucaides,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoli
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni, judges,
and
Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in application no. 20430/04 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 three Russian nationals, Mr Anton Viktorovich
Gladyshev, Mr Stanislav Aleksandrovich Mogilnikov and Mrs Lyudmila
Nikolayevna Voronina (“the applicants”), on 7 May 2004.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr V. Maurtsev, a lawyer practising in
Barnaul. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
29 May 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning
the quashing of two judgments to the Government. Under the provisions
of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the
merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1976, 1973 and 1955 respectively and live in
Barnaul, the Altay region.
- In
1988 and 1990 the applicants obtained several state bonds entitling
them to 4 % annual interest and to recovering of their value at the
State Savings Bank at any time. After the applicants' unsuccessful
attempts to receive the payment of the bonds, the following civil
proceedings were initiated.
Proceedings
concerning the first applicant
- On
7 October 2002 the Tsentralnyi District Court of Barnaul in the Altay
region partly granted Mr Gladyshev's claim against the Government of
Russia for pecuniary damages and interests and awarded him
104,690
Russian roubles (RUB).
- On
27 November 2002 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment with
minor changes.
- On
the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong
assessment of evidence by the courts and the failure to indicate the
organisation which was due to transfer the award, a supervisory
review was initiated, and, on 10 February 2004 the Presidium of the
Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the
applicant's claim.
Proceedings
concerning the second applicant
- On
6 November 2002 the Novoaltayskiy City Court partly granted
Mr
Mogilnikov's claim against the Government of Russia for pecuniary
damages and interests and awarded him RUB 90,788.
10.
On 5 February 2003 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment.
-
On the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong
assessment of evidence and misapplication of the domestic law, a
supervisory review was initiated and on 2 December 2003 the Presidium
of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the
applicant's claim.
Proceedings
concerning the third applicant
-
On 21 November 2002 the Novoaltayskiy City Court partly granted Mrs
Voronina's claim against the Government of Russia for pecuniary
damages and interests and awarded her RUB 98,961.
13.
On 15 February 2003 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment.
-
On the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong
assessment of evidence and misapplication of the domestic law, a
supervisory review was initiated and on 21 October 2003 the Presidium
of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the
applicant's claim.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR.
- The
applicants complained that the quashing of the final judgments made
in their favour violated their “right to a court” and
their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. 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 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 Court notes that the complaints of the first two
applicants,
Mr Gladyshev and Mr Mogilnikov are not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any
other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
-
As to the complaint of the third applicant, Mrs Voronina, the final
judgment in respect of her was quashed by the Presidium of the Altay
Regional Court on 21 October 2003 and the applicant lodged her
application with the Court only on 7 May 2004, e.g. more than six
months later. Nothing in the applicant's submissions indicates that
she was not immediately aware of the ruling. The third applicant's
complaints are thus introduced to the Court out of time (see Sardin
v. Russia (dec.),
no. 69582/01, ECHR
2004 II) and should be dismissed in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Merits
1. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
(a) Arguments by the parties
- The
Government submitted that the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the
Altay Region had lawful grounds to quash the judgments in the
applicants' favour because their claims had been granted mistakenly.
Accordingly, there had been no violation of the applicants' “right
to a court” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
- The
applicants maintained their claims.
(b) The Court's assessment
- The
Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal
as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be
interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which
declares, in its relevant part, the rule of law to be part of the
common heritage of the Contracting States. One of the fundamental
aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which
requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally
determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question
(see Brumărescu v. Romania, judgment of 28 October 1999,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-VII, § 61).
- This
principle insists that no party is entitled to seek re-opening of the
proceedings merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh
decision of the case. Higher courts' power to quash or alter binding
and enforceable judicial decisions should be exercised for correction
of fundamental defects. The mere possibility of two views on the
subject is not a ground for re-examination. Departures from that
principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of
a substantial and compelling character
(see, mutatis mutandis,
Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR
2003-X;
and Pravednaya v. Russia,
no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004).
- The
Court observes that on 7 October 2002 the Tsentralnyi District Court
of Barnaul and on 6 November 2002 the Novoaltayskiy City Court of
Barnaul upheld the first two applicants' actions and granted them
certain sums of money. The judgments were upheld on appeal on
27
November 2002 and on 5 February 2003 respectively by the Altay
Regional Court and became binding and enforceable. On 10 February
2004 and on 2 December 2003 these judgments were quashed by way of a
supervisory review.
- The
Court reiterates that it has found a violation of an applicant's
“right to a court” guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention in many Russian cases in which a judicial decision
that had become final and binding, was subsequently quashed or even
amended by a higher court on an application by a State official or a
party to the proceedings
(see Roseltrans v. Russia,
no. 60974/00, §§ 27-28, 21 July 2005; Volkova
v. Russia, no. 48758/99,
§§ 34-36, 5 April 2005; Ryabykh,
cited above, §§ 51-56; Borshchevskiy v. Russia,
no. 14853/03, §§ 46-48, 21 September 2006; and
Sypchenko v. Russia, no. 38368/04, §§ 25-31,
6 November 2006). Furthermore, in the case of Kot v. Russia
the Court found as follows:
“It is unavoidable that in civil proceedings the
parties would have conflicting views on application of the
substantive law. The courts are called upon to examine their
arguments in a fair and adversarial manner and make their assessment
of the claim. The Court observes that before an application for
supervisory review was lodged, the merits of the applicant's claim
had been examined ... by the first-instance and appeal courts. It has
not been claimed that the courts acted outside their competences or
that there was a fundamental defect in the proceedings before them.
The fact that the Presidium disagreed with the assessment made by the
first-instance and appeal courts was not, in itself, an exceptional
circumstance warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable
judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim”
(no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007)).
- Having
examined the materials submitted to it, the Court observes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present
case. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of
the quashing of the final judgments of 7 October 2002 and 6 November
2002 as upheld on appeal on 27 November 2002 and on 5 February 2003
respectively, by way of supervisory-review proceedings.
2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
- The
Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding
and enforceable judgment constitutes the judgment beneficiary's
“possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. Quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference
with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see,
among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00,
§ 69, 6 October 2005).
- The
Court observes that final and enforceable judgments from
7
October 2002 and 6 November 2002 as upheld on appeal on
27
November 2002 and on 5 February 2003 respectively were both quashed
by way of a supervisory review on 10 February 2004 and on
2
December 2003.
- The
Court observes that the applicants obtained binding and enforceable
judgments in their favour, by the terms of which the Ministry of
Finance was to pay them substantial amounts of money. They were
prevented from receiving the award through no fault of their own. The
quashing of the enforceable judgments frustrated the applicants'
reliance on binding judicial decisions and deprived them of an
opportunity to receive the money they had legitimately expected to
receive. In these circumstances, even assuming that the interference
was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the
quashing of the enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour by
way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on the
applicants and was incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1.
There has therefore been a violation of that Article.
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 claimed sums representing judgment awards in respect of
pecuniary damage. They further claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) each in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that the claims for pecuniary damages were
unsubstantiated. They further submitted that the claims in respect of
non-pecuniary damage were unreasonable and excessive.
- As
regards the claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court, having
regard to the nature of the violation found, considers it appropriate
to award the applicants the sums which they would have received had
the judgments in their favour not been quashed (see the facts), plus
any tax that may be chargeable (cf. Stetsenko v. Russia,
no. 878/03, § 69,
5 October 2006).
- The
Court further considers that the applicants suffered distress and
frustration resulting from the quashing of the judicial decisions by
way of supervisory-review proceedings. Nevertheless, the amounts
claimed are excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis,
the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 2,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the
above amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants 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 will examine on 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 complaints submitted
under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention by Mr Gladyshev and Mr Mogilnikov, and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, shall pay the applicants the awards made under the
judgment of 7 October 2002 in favour of the first applicant,
Mr
Gladyshev, and under the judgment of 6 November 2002 in favour of the
second applicant, Mr Mogilnikov, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b)
that the respondent State shall pay each of the applicants, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000
(two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(c) 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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 February 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
