[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ANUFRIYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 32215/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 April
2011
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 Anufriyev v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Christos Rozakis,
Peer
Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 March 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 32215/05) 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 Aleksandrovich
Anufriyev (“the applicant”), on 27 May 2005.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged that the final and binding domestic judgment in his
favour had not been enforced in a timely manner.
- On
25 April 2008 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same
time.
- On
4 May 2009 the case was adjourned pending settlement in accordance
with the pilot judgment (Burdov v. Russia (no. 2),
no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...).
- On
15 September 2010 the adjournment ceased without the Government
having been able to ensure enforcement of the judgment in question
(see paragraph 16 below).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kurgan.
- In
2002 the criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant. On
19 May 2003 he was acquitted by the Kurgan Regional Court (“the
Regional Court”). That acquittal was upheld on appeal by the
Supreme Court of Russia and became final.
- The
applicant lodged a claim for compensation. On 22 October 2003
the Kurgan Town Court partly allowed that claim and awarded the
applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB), this sum was equal to
approximately 140 euros (EUR) at the material time. The award
was payable from the federal budget.
- The
judgment of 22 October 2003 was upheld on appeal by the Regional
Court on 11 December 2003 and thus became final. Writ of execution
was issued.
- On
17 February 2004 the court bailiffs returned the writ of execution to
the applicant who was advised to address himself directly to the
Ministry of Finance in Moscow. He apparently did so.
- On
17 February 2005 the Director of Legal Department at the Ministry of
Finance wrote to the applicant assuring him that the final judgment
of the Town Court of 22 October 2003 in his favour had been in the
course of being enforced.
- That
judgment remains unenforced.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- Relevant
domestic law and practice in the material time are summarised in
Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 26-33.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant contended that the prolonged failure to enforce the
judgment of 22 October 2003 in his favour had violated his right to a
court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as
relevant, provides the following:
“In the determination of his [or her] civil rights
and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by
[a] ... tribunal ...”
- The
Government averred that they had no possibility to enforce the
judgment of 22 October 2003 as the applicant had not re-submitted the
writ of execution which had been returned to him on 25 August
2005 “due to [its] incompatibility with legislation”.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court considers 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 Article 6 § 1 of the Convention secures to
everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil
rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this
way it embodies the “right to a court” which would be
illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed
a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002-III).
- An
unreasonably long delay in enforcement of a binding judgment may
therefore breach the Convention. The reasonableness of such delay is
to be determined having regard in particular to the complexity of the
enforcement proceedings, the applicant’s own behaviour and that
of the competent authorities, and the amount and nature of the court
award. Although some delay may be justified in particular
circumstances, it may not, in any event, be such as to impair the
essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov
(no. 2), cited above, §§ 66-67).
- The
Court reiterates that a person who has obtained a judgment against
the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement
proceedings. However, a successful litigant may be required to
undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment
debt. That requirement does not relieve the authorities of their
obligation to take timely ex officio action with a view to
honouring the judgment against the State (see Akashev v. Russia,
no. 30616/05, §§ 21-22, 12 June 2008).
- Turning
to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the
judgment of 22 October 2003 in the applicant’s favour was
rendered against the State. The applicant undertook certain
procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt, in
particular, he notified the Ministry of Finance of the judgment
against the State rendered in his favour. He was advised by a senior
official of the Ministry of Finance that the judgment in question had
been about to be enforced and had therefore legitimate expectation
that no additional action on his part was required. The same agency
however later returned the writ of execution to him. The Government
did not explain why it had been “incompatible” with the
legislation and what the applicant could have done in order to
rectify the alleged incompatibility.
- The
Court therefore concludes that the authorities did not discharge
their obligation to honour the binding judgment of 22 October
2003 rendered in the applicant’s favour against the State.
- It
has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in this respect.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant contended that failure to have the judgment of 22 October
2003 in his favour enforced constituted unlawful deprivation of his
possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which reads as
follows:
“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.”
- The
parties’ arguments in this respect were the same as those in
connection with the applicant’s complaint under Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court considers 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
judgment which was never revoked provides the applicant with a
“possession” within the meaning of this Article (see
Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §
44, 6 March 2003).
- The
judgment of 22 October 2003 became final on 11 December 2003
(see paragraph 10 above) and has not been revoked since. By failing
to comply with that judgment, the national authorities prevented the
applicant from receiving the money he could reasonably have expected
to receive.
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 requested compensation of pecuniary damage totalling to 900
euros (EUR) constituting, in his submission, “the sum of
delinquency”. He further requested compensation of
non-pecuniary damage suffered. In his estimation, he should be
awarded EUR 17,500 under this heading.
- The
Government made no pertinent observation.
- As
to pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates that the best redress of a
violation of Article 6 is to put the applicant as far as possible in
the position he would have been if Article 6 had been respected (see
Akashev, cited above, § 32). Applied to the case at hand,
this principle would mean that the State must pay to the applicant
EUR 140 that he should have received under the judgment of 22 October
2003. Accordingly, the Court awards EUR 140 under this head.
- As
to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant must
have suffered distress from the non-enforcement of the judgment in
question. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 750 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no request under this heading. The Court accordingly
sees no reason to make any order in this respect.
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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1;
- 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 140 (one
hundred and forty euros) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 750
(seven hundred and fifty euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the
date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these
amounts,
(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 5 April 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President
