ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.11.2005<ДЕЛО ВАЛЕНТИНА ВАСИЛЬЕВА (valentina vasilyeva) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF VALENTINA
VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 7237/03)
JUDGMENT
<*>
(Strasbourg, 17.XI.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> 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 Valentina Vasilyeva v. Russia,
The European
Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs {N. Vajic}
<*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь
и далее по тексту слова на национальном
языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены
фигурными скобками.
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S.
Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25
October 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 7237/03)
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, Ms Valentina Ivanovna Vasilyeva, on 20
November 2001.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were
represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 7 October 2003 the Court decided to
communicate the application 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
4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Voronezh.
5.
The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil
proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those
payments.
6. On 2 November 2000 the Tsentralny District Court of Voronezh
awarded the applicant 2,388.49 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into
force on 13 November 2000 and on the same date the writ of execution was issued
and sent to the bailiffs.
7. On 28 September 2001 the Voronezh Department
of the Central Bank of Russia informed the applicant that the judgment in her
favour could not be enforced for lack of the debtor"s funds.
8. On 11
September 2002 the bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant
without enforcement.
9. By letter of 21 March 2003 the Voronezh
Department of the Central Bank of Russia invited the applicant to address her
queries concerning the enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 2000 to the
debtor.
10. In January - February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount
due pursuant to the writ of execution.
II. Relevant domestic law
11.
Section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997 provides
that a bailiff"s order on the institution of enforcement proceedings must fix a
time-limit for the defendant"s voluntary compliance with a writ of execution.
The time-limit may not exceed five days. The bailiff must also warn the
defendant that coercive action will follow, should the defendant fail to comply
with the time-limit.
12. Under Section 13 of the Law, the enforcement
proceedings should be completed within two months of the receipt of the writ of
enforcement by the bailiff.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of
the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
13.
The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 2
November 2000. 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
14. 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 had been enforced, the Government invited the Court to strike out the
application, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
15. The
applicant disagreed with the Government"s arguments and maintained her
complaints. As regards the friendly settlement proposal, the applicant claimed
that the authorities of the Voronezh Region had made an offer to her, but did
not allow her to acquaint herself with the terms of that offer and that, in any
event, the amount of the judgment debt transferred to her account in 2004 had
lost its purchasing power due to inflation.
16. 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
2003-...).
17. 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, to Akman v. Turkey (striking
out), No. 37453/97, §§ 23 - 24, ECHR 2001-VI).
18. As regards the
Government"s argument that the judgment in question has already been enforced,
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, e.g., Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).
19. In the light of the above considerations, the Court rejects the Government"s
request to strike the application out under Article 37 of the Convention.
20. The Court notes that the application 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
21. The Government advanced no arguments on the
merits of the application.
22. The applicant maintained her
complaint.
23. The Court observes that the judgment of 2 November 2000
remained inoperative for about three years and three months. No justification
was advanced by the Government for this delay.
24. 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).
25. 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.
26. 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
27. The applicant also
complained that the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour
violated her rights to effective domestic remedies under Article 13 of the
Convention.
28. The Court considers that this complaint is linked to the
above issues 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 26 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to
examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article
13.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
29. 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
30. As regards compensation for pecuniary damage, the
applicant claimed RUR 4976.66 as the interest payable at a statutory rate of 28%
for the default period as well as 30,000 US dollars (USD), of which USD 10,000
represented the amount she could have earned during the period when, instead,
she had sought the enforcement of the judgment in her favour and USD 20,000 was
the compensation for the losses her child had sustained as a result of the
untimely enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 2000. She also claimed USD
45,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
31. The Government contested
the applicant"s claims as wholly excessive and unjustified. As regards the
pecuniary damage, they pointed out that under national law it was open to the
applicant to file a court claim, seeking interest for the delayed payment of her
judgment debt, and that the domestic courts would calculate such interest on the
basis of a statutory rate which was currently equal to 14%. Therefore, in the
Government"s view, the interest accrued by the applicants should amount to RUR
1,337.55. As to the non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that should
the Court find a violation in this case that would in itself constitute
sufficient just satisfaction.
32. Having regard to the materials in its
possession, the Court accepts the Government"s argument and awards the applicant
RUR 1,337.55, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary
damage.
33. As regards the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the
Court would not exclude that the applicant might have suffered distress and
frustration resulting from the State authorities" failure to enforce the
judgment in her favour. However, having regard to the nature of the breach in
this case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considers
that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see, in a
similar context, Poznakhirina, cited above, § 35).
B. Costs and
expenses
34. The applicant also claimed RUR 10,000 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
35. The
Government considered the applicant"s claims to be unfounded and manifestly
excessive and noted that the documents submitted by the applicant lacked
evidence that she had incurred such costs.
36. 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 applicant the sum of EUR 20 in
respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
C. Default interest
37. 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
1. Declares the application
admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
3. Holds
that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the
Convention;
4. 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, the following
amounts:
(i) RUR 1,337.55 (one thousand three hundred and thirty-seven
roubles and fifty-five kopecks) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
20 (twenty euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the
national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above
amounts;
(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;
5. Holds that the finding of
a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any
non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
6. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant"s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English,
and notified in writing on 17 November 2005, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of
the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
Santiago
QUESADA
Deputy Registrar
