[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ALEKSEYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 36153/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 December 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 Alekseyeva v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 20 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 36153/03) 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, Ms Svetlana Fedorovna
Alekseyeva (“the applicant”), on 10 October 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr A. Brykin, a lawyer practising in
Novoaltaysk. The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
9 February 2004 and 14 June 2005 the Court decided to communicate the
complaints concerning non-enforcement and supervisory review of a
binding judgment 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 1959 and lives in Novoaltaysk, a town in the
Altay Region.
- In
2003 the applicant sued the Government and the Ministry of Finance
for liquidation of Soviet bonds issued in 1982.
- On
30 June 2003 the Novoaltaysk Town Court of the Altay Region awarded
the applicant 6,635,348.50 Russian roubles (RUB). This judgment
became binding on 18 July 2003 but was not enforced immediately.
- The
Ministry of Finance lodged a supervisory-review appeal, and on
10 February 2004 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court
quashed the judgment. The Presidium found that the District Court had
misinterpreted material law and, in particular, had ignored the rule
saying that the Soviet bonds could have been liquidated only after
their ulterior conversion into Russian special-purpose debentures.
The Presidium concluded that since until then no such conversion had
been made, and since the yearly budget had had no allocations for the
liquidation of the bonds, the District Court had effectively replaced
itself for the body competent to make the conversion and thus
overstepped its authority.
- In
2003–04 the applicant also instituted a number of proceedings
against high ranking State officials. These proceedings were
refused or stayed because of the applicant’s failure to comply
with procedural requirements.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of
Finance must enforce a judgment within three months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF SUPERVISORY
REVIEW
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of the judgment on
supervisory review. Insofar as relevant, these Articles 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
- The
Government argued that the supervisory review had been meant to
protect the treasury and that the applicant had not entirely lost the
prospect of having her bonds liquidated, because the State had merely
adjourned the liquidation pending the full-scale implementation of
the liquidation scheme.
- The
applicant contested this statement.
- The
Court notes that this 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
Court has earlier found that where, like in the present case, a
supervisory review of a binding judgment is meant to correct an
alleged misapplication of material law, it constitutes an appeal in
disguise and violates the Convention (see, for example, Kot v.
Russia, no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
- The
Court finds no reason to depart from this finding in the
present case. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of
the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
NON-ENFORCEMENT
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded. The
enforcement of the judgment had been adjourned pending supervisory
review, and the judgment had been quashed shortly afterwards because
it had contradicted fundamental laws.
- The
applicant argued that this complaint was admissible. She decried the
authorities’ failure to liquidate the bonds.
- The
Court notes that this 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
Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement
of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR
2002 III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will
look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the
applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the
award was (see Raylyan v. Russia,
no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
- Given
the above finding that the supervisory review of the judgment was
incompatible with the Convention, the Court considers that the period
to be taken into account should be extended beyond the date of the
supervisory review (see Sukhobokov v. Russia,
no. 75470/01, §§ 25–26, 13 April 2006).
Accordingly, to date the enforcement of the judgment has lasted over
five years.
- This
period is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. The
intervention of the supervisory-review authorities did not justify
this delay (see Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, § 42,
23 October 2003; Sukhobokov, cited above, § 26).
- There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the applicant complained under Articles 1, 6, 13, 14, 17, and 18 of
the Convention about the way the authorities had handled her
complaints against the high ranking officials.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, 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 is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with 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 RUB 7,448,315 in respect of pecuniary damage and
10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that these claims were unfounded and excessive.
- With
regard to pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the
violation found is best redressed by putting the applicant in the
position she would have been if the Convention had been respected. It
is therefore appropriate to award the applicant the equivalent in
euros of the sum that she would have received if the judgment of 30
June 2003 had not been quashed (see Bolyukh v. Russia,
no. 19134/05, § 39, 31 July 2007).
The Court awards EUR 194,817 under this head.
- With
regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Court accepts that the applicant
must have been distressed by the supervisory review and
non-enforcement of the judgment. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 4,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed RUB 759,197.25 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
- The
Government argued that this claim was unjustified an excessive.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings
and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 300 for the
proceedings before the Court.
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 and supervisory review admissible 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 on
account of the supervisory review;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of the non-enforcement;
- 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 into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 194,817
(one hundred ninety-four thousand eight
hundred seventeen euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 4,000 (four thousand
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 300 (three hundred
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in
respect of costs and expenses;
(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
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 December 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
