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 MIKHAYLOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 22156/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 October
2009
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 Mikhaylov v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 22156/04) 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, Mr Dmitriy Nikolayevich
Mikhaylov (“the applicant”), on 12 May 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agents, Ms V. Milinchuk, former
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
2 April 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Volgograd.
- In 1986 the applicant was engaged in emergency
operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a
result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.
In 1997 he underwent medical examinations which established a link
between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events.
The applicant was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.
- In
2000 the applicant brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of
the Krasnooktyabrskiy District of the Volgograd Region (Управление
социальной
защиты населения
Краснооктябрьского
района
Волгоградской
области - “the
defendant”) for an increase in the compensation, for the
increase to be backdated and for recovery of the unpaid amount. The
applicant considered that the amount of compensation had been
determined incorrectly.
- On
5 October 2000 the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd
upheld the applicant's action and awarded him a lump sum of
113,707.59 Russian roubles (RUB) and monthly payments of
RUB 4,051.88, to be paid before the date of the subsequent
medical examination, which was made in June 2002.
- On
24 April 2002 the lump sum, and on 29 April 2003 and on 30 May 2003
the arrears of the monthly payments, were credited to the applicant's
account, so that the judgment was enforced in full.
- On
13 February 2004, at the defendant's request, the Presidium of the
Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5 October 2000 and
remitted the case for a fresh examination. The basis for this
decision was that the District Court had applied the substantive law
incorrectly.
- On
4 June 2004 the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd
terminated the proceedings due to the applicant's failure to appear.
The applicant did not appeal. Instead, he brought another set of
proceedings with the same court, claiming adjustment of monthly
payments and seeking damages for 1997-2007.
- After
several sets of proceedings, by a final judgment of 16 August 2007
the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd granted the
applicant's claims in part, i.e. lowering the amounts previously
awarded by the judgment of 5 October 2000. It took into account
that the latter judgment had been quashed on 13 February 2004,
recalculated the sums paid under it and deducted the difference from
the sums awarded. The judgment entered into force on 3 September
2007.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at
the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of
Sobelin and Others v.
Russia (no. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 33-42, 3 May
2007).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
SUPERVISORY REVIEW
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 5 October 2000 had
been quashed by way of supervisory review on 13 February 2004. In so
far 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
Government contested that argument. They argued, inter alia,
that the supervisory review had been compatible with the Convention
as the lower court had interpreted and applied the substantive law
erroneously.
A. Admissibility
- 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 it has frequently found violations of the
principle of legal certainty and of the right to a court in the
supervisory-review proceedings governed by the Code of Civil
Procedure of 2003 (see Sobelin, cited above, §§
57-58, and Bodrov v. Russia,
no. 17472/04, § 31, 12 February 2009).
- The
Court also reiterates that for the sake of the legal certainty
implicitly required by Article 6, final judgments should generally be
left intact. They may be disturbed only to correct fundamental
errors. To answer this complaint the Court will hence have to
determine if the grounds for the quashing of the applicant's judgment
fell within this exception (see Protsenko v. Russia,
no. 13151/04, § 29, 31 July
2008).
- In
the present case the final judgment was quashed solely on the grounds
of the alleged misinterpretation of the substantive law.
- According
to the Court's constant case-law, the fact that the Presidium
disagreed with the interpretation of substantive law made by the
lower courts was not in itself an exceptional circumstance warranting
the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment (see Kot v.
Russia, no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
- The
foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to
conclude that in the present cases there were no circumstances
justifying departure from the principle of legal certainty.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6.
- The Court further observes that the final and
enforceable judgment by which the applicant had been awarded and paid
a sum of money was quashed by way of a supervisory review. As a
result a part of the sum was deducted from subsequent payments (see
paragraph 11) and thus the applicant was deprived of possessions
given him by the quashed judgment. There has accordingly been a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained under Article 6 that the judgment of
5 October 2000 had not been enforced in time and under Article
14 that he had been discriminated against on the grounds that he was
partially disabled.
- As
to the complaint that the judgment had not been enforced in time, it
was lodged on 12 May 2004, which is more than six months after the
enforcement of the judgment (see paragraph 8).
- As
to the complaint that he had been discriminated against, it is
unsubstantiated as it is not supported by any material submitted.
- It
follows that these complaints are respectively out of time and
manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 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 1,564.35 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
caused by the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 5 October 2000
(which was fully enforced only on 30 May 2003), and EUR 6,500 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claims.
- As
to pecuniary damage, on the one hand, the application in part of the
lengthy enforcement of the judgment of 5 October 2000 is inadmissible
(see paragraph 24 above). On the other hand, the applicant failed to
claim in respect of pecuniary damage caused by the quashing by way of
supervisory review of the final judgment, the quashing being the only
violation of the Convention found in the present case. Thus, there is
no causal link between the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary
damage (which concern only the delayed enforcement of the judgment)
and the violation found. Therefore no award in respect of pecuniary
damage should be made in the present case.
- As
to non-pecuniary damage, the Court takes
the view that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage as a
result of the violation found which cannot be made good by the
Court's mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the
Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 3,500 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claims under this head. Accordingly, the Court will
make no 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 complaint concerning the
supervisory review admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of
the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgment in
the applicant's favour;
- 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 3,500
(three thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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 22 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
