[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KOROTKIKH v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 4543/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 March 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 Korotkikh v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 4543/02) 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 Valentina Pavlovna
Korotkikh (“the applicant”), on 21 December 2001.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at
the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
28 April 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint about
the alleged non-execution of the final judgment in the applicant's
favour 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 1949 lives in Voronezh.
- She
is entitled to welfare payments for her child. In 1999 the applicant
brought proceedings against the regional welfare authority, claiming
arrears in those payments.
- On
14 February 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh
awarded the applicant 8,736.32 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment
was not appealed against and entered into force on 25 February 2000.
The enforcement proceedings commenced.
- On
26 July 2001 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings
referring to the lack of funds at the defendant's disposal.
- On
29 July 2005 the applicant received the amount due to her pursuant to
the judgment.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the
judgment in her favour. The Court will examine this complaint under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention. These Articles, in so far as relevant, 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 informed the Court that the authorities of the Voronezh
Region had attempted to secure a friendly settlement of the case and
that the applicant had refused to accept the friendly settlement on
the terms proposed by the authorities. By reference to this refusal
and to the fact that, in any event, the judgment in the applicant's
favour has been enforced, the Government asserted that the applicant
was no longer a victim of the violations alleged. The Government
invited the Court to reject the application as manifestly
ill-founded, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government and maintained her
complaints. As regards the friendly settlement proposal, the
applicant claimed that the calculations presented by the authorities
of the Voronezh Region had been incorrect since they had contained no
adjustment to the inflation rate.
- The Court firstly observes that the parties were
unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case.
The Court recalls that under certain circumstances an application may
indeed be struck out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1
(c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the
respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of
the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC],
no. 26307/95, § 76, ECHR 2004 III). The Court notes,
however, that this procedure is an exceptional one and is not, as
such, intended to circumvent the applicant's opposition to a friendly
settlement. Furthermore, the Court observes that a distinction must
be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context
of strictly confidential friendly-settlement proceedings (Article 38
§ 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of
Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a
respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before
the Court (see Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 45, 6
October 2005). On the facts, the Court observes that the Government
failed to submit with the Court any formal statement capable of
falling into the latter category and offering a sufficient basis for
finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case
(see, by contrast, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no.
37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI).
- As
regards the Government's argument that the applicant is no longer a
victim of the violations alleged, the Court considers that the mere
fact that the authorities complied with the judgment after a
substantial delay cannot be viewed in this case as automatically
depriving the applicant of her victim status under the Convention.
(see, for example, Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, §
16, 24 February 2005).
- The
Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the
complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the delay in the
enforcement of the court judgment in the applicant's favour raise
serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the
determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The
Court concludes therefore that these complaints are not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. No other ground for declaring them inadmissible has been
established.
B. Merits
- The
Court notes that the Government acknowledged that the delay in the
enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour violated her
rights under the Convention. The Court further observes that the
judgment of 14 February 2000, which entered into force on 25
February 2000, remained inoperative until 29 July 2005, i.e. for five
years, five months and four days.
- 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, among other
authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III;
and, more recently, Petrushko, cited above, or Poznakhirina
v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government did 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 years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the
applicant's favour the domestic authorities prevented her from
receiving the money she could reasonably have expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained that the lengthy non-enforcement of the
judgments in her favour violated her rights under Articles 13 and 17
of the Convention.
- As regards the complaint under Article 17, having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as this
complaint falls within its competence, the Court finds that it does
not
disclose
any
appearance of a
violation of Article 17 of the Convention. 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.
- As
to the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court
considers that it is linked to the issue of non-enforcement to such
an extent that it should be declared admissible as well. However,
having regard to the finding relating to Article 6 § 1 (see
paragraph 18 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to
examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Articles
13 (see, mutatis mutandis, Korchagina and Others v. Russia,
no. 27295/03, §§ 26-27, 17 November 2005).
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 sought to recover pecuniary damages which, in her
assessment, should amount to the sum of judgment debt increased by
fifteen. She also claimed 50,000 United States dollars as
non-pecuniary damages.
- The
Government contested the applicants' claims as excessive and
unjustified. They considered that should the Court find a violation
in this case, that would in itself constitute sufficient just
satisfaction.
- As
regards pecuniary damage the Court does not discern any causal link
between the violation found and the damage alleged; furthermore, the
applicant's method of calculation is arbitrary. The Court therefore
rejects this claim.
- At
the same time the Court finds that the applicant suffered
non pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately compensated
by the finding of a violation alone. However, the amount claimed by
the applicant appears to be excessive. The Court takes into account
the nature and the amounts of the awards, the delays before the
enforcement and other relevant aspects. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR),
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed 10,000 Russian roubles for the costs and
expenses incurred before the Court, which represented translator's
fees, postal and other expenses.
- The
Government contested the applicants' claims as unjustified. They
noted that the applicant did not submit documents indicating that she
had incurred any costs.
- 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. In the present case, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 20 in respect of
costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable (see
Kazartseva and Others v. Russia, no. 13995/02, § 49,
17 November 2005, and Korchagina and Others v. Russia,
no. 27295/03, § 35, 17 November 2005).
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 under Articles 6 and 13
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
admissible;
- Declares the complaint under Article 17 of the
Convention inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention;
- Holds that there is no need to examine the
complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;
- 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) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 20 (twenty euros) for costs
and expenses, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable on 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 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 27 March 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
