ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 13.10.2005<ДЕЛО ГЕРАСИМОВА (gerasimova) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]

and the search of the applicant"s flat inadmissible. The other claims made by the applicant do not relate to the subject of the present proceedings. Accordingly, the Court rejects the applicant"s claim for pecuniary damage.
28. On the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress because of the State authorities" failure to enforce the judgment at issue. The Court takes into account the amount and nature of the award, the lengthy period of the authorities" inactivity and the fact that the judgment has not been fully enforced. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
29. The applicant did not make any claims in respect of the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
30. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
31. 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.
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the awards made by the domestic courts, and in addition pay the applicant EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant"s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2005, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the concurring opinion of Mr Kovler is annexed to this judgment.
Whereas I concur with the Chamber"s finding that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of a lengthy non-enforcement of a judicial decision in the applicant"s favour and, as a consequence, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, I would like to discuss in more detail the Government"s objection to the admissibility of the application founded on the premise that self-government (municipal) bodies do not form part of the system of State bodies by virtue of Article 12 of the Russian Constitution (see paragraph 15 of the judgment) and, consequently, the State is not responsible for the acts of the Chapayevsk Social Security Service.
1. As the national judge, I bear witness to many discussions about Article 12 of the Constitution and, especially, of its provision that "local self-government bodies shall not form part of the system of State bodies". Contradictory interpretations of that provision were given in the light of Article 132 § 2 of the Constitution which conferred public-law functions on the local self-government bodies: "Local self-government bodies may be vested by law with certain State functions and accordingly receive material and financial resources which are necessary for their implementation. The implementation of the State functions shall be controlled by the State".
It is understood that the Chapayevsk Social Security Service exercised precisely public-law functions, including the social protection of the population, even though emoluments were payable from the local rather than federal budget.
2. The protection of social rights of individuals is an integral part of the general system for the protection of human rights which, under the Russian Constitution, is either under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federation (Article 71) or under the joint jurisdiction of the federation and its constituent entities (Article 72), but never, and I emphasise - never, under the exclusive jurisdiction of a constituent entity.
If it were otherwise, the State would not be responsible for ensuring effective respect for many individual rights, including those enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Obviously, such a construction would be contrary to Article 1 of the Convention and to the "ordinary meaning" of the term "jurisdiction". Explaining the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, the Court noted that it "makes no distinction as to the type of rule or measure concerned, and does not exclude any part of the member States" "jurisdiction" from scrutiny under the Convention" (Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 24833/94, § 29, ECHR 1999-I).
I will not speculate about a possible breach of the "vertical of power". If the term "jurisdiction" is to be linked to the concept of "responsibility", the argument that a State is not responsible for the acts (failures to act) of the agencies located within its territory, even if those are municipal agencies, is unsustainable. Indeed, as the Court noted on many occasions, a State is not responsible for the obligations of "third parties", such as private individuals, companies or banks (see, among others, Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), No. 48757/99, 18 June 2002). However, it is highly unlikely that the Court would include municipal bodies in that category of "third persons", even having regard to the respondent State"s margin of appreciation.
Once the Court rejected the argument by a State that denied its responsibility for the acts of the independent judicial authorities: "In all cases before the Court, what is in issue is the international responsibility of the State" (Lukanov v. Bulgaria, judgment of 20 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, § 40).

РЕШЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 06.07.2004"ПО ВОПРОСУ ПРИЕМЛЕМОСТИ ЖАЛОБЫ n 45550/99 "КЛАРА ХУДОВНА КАТАЕВА (klara khudovna katayeva) И МОВЛАДИН ХАСАНОВИЧ КАТАЕВ (movladin khasanovich katayev) ПРОТИВ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ" [рус., англ.]  »
Международное законодательство »
Читайте также