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 KOZODOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications
nos. 2701/04, 3597/04, 11898/04, 31946/04, and 34826/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 January
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 Kozodoyev and
Others 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 11 December 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in applications 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 the Russian nationals listed in the table below.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
- The
President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaint
concerning non-enforcement of judgments to the Government. It was
also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same
time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3). The Government
objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits,
but the Court rejected this objection.
THE FACTS
- The
applicants obtained civil judgments against the State and its
agencies. The judgments became binding but their full enforcement was
delayed. Particulars of the judgments are tabulated below.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments.
The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 this complaint was inadmissible. Not all
applicants had been victims, among other things because the delayed
awards had been adjusted for the cost of living. Some judgments had
been given before 5 May 1998 (the date of entry into force of the
Convention in respect of Russia), and hence the complaint was
incompatible ratione temporis. The applicants had failed to
exhaust domestic remedies such as a claim for damages, an adjustment
for the cost of living, and a negligence action. The applicants had
missed the six-month time-limit for applying to the Court. The
authorities had done their best to enforce the judgments. Any delays
had been caused by objective obstacles such as the complexity of the
budgetary system, the applicants’ failure to respect
formalities, and the applicants’ refusal of settlement offers.
- The
applicants maintained their complaints insisting that the judgments
had been enforced with unreasonable delays or enforced only partly.
- The
Court notes that it has on many occasions rejected arguments similar
to the ones raised by the Government in the present case (see, among
other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (dec.), no. 59498/00,
ECHR 2001 VI; Akashev v. Russia,
no. 30616/05, §§ 22–23, 12 June 2008;
Nazarchuk v. Ukraine, no. 9670/02, § 20, 19 April
2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia,
no. 43883/02, § 16, 24 February 2005). In the present cases
the Court will also reject these arguments.
- 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).
- In
the present cases, for each applicant the enforcement of at least one
judgment exceeded one year. Taking into consideration the lack of
complexity of the enforcement, the parties’ behaviour and the
nature of the awards, the Court finds that this period was
incompatible with the requirements of the Convention.
- There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants also made a number of accessory complaints referring to
Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 18 of the Convention, and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- 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 these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 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.”
- The
applicants advanced wide-ranging claims in respect of pecuniary
damage, non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses. The Government
contested most of the claims as unfounded.
- The
Court considers that the applicants have sustained pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage as a result of the delayed enforcement of the
judgments. The Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the
enforcement of the judgments that are marked as outstanding in the
table below (see, with further
references, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02,
§ 33, 24 February 2005). In addition, making its assessment
on equitable and reasonable bases, the Court awards to the applicants
the amounts shown in the last column of the table below.
- 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
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares the complaint concerning
non-enforcement of judgments admissible and the remainder of the
applications inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
shall secure the enforcement of the judgments marked as
outstanding in the table below, and in addition
pay the applicants the amounts shown in the last column of the table
below;
(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 applicants’
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 January 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
