ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.11.2005<ДЕЛО СУНЦОВА (suntsova) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SUNTSOVA v.
RUSSIA
(Application No. 55687/00)
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 Suntsova
v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K.
Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, 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. 55687/00)
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 Lyudmila Grigoryevna Suntsova, a Russian national, on 12
September 1999.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were
represented by their Agent, Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 30 September 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 1948
and lives in Volgograd.
5. Pursuant to a decision of the Volgograd
Central District Administration of 14 October 1987 the applicant began receiving
a monthly single mother allowance in respect of her daughter who was born on 15
April 1986.
6. In 1998, from April to July, the applicant received no
payments.
On 4 September 1998 the applicant brought proceedings before
the Central District Court of the City of Volgograd (Центральный
районный суд города Волгограда) requesting the
payment of outstanding sums.
7. By a judgment of 21 September 1998 the
court allowed the applicant"s claim and ordered the Finance Department of the
Volgograd Regional Administration (Волгоградское
облфинуправление) to pay the applicant 467.56 roubles
(RUR).
8. Following the entry into force of the judgment, the court"s
bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings for recovery of the sum awarded to
the applicant. However, the applicant was informed that in 1998 the court
judgment could not be enforced, because the defendant lacked sufficient
funds.
9. The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the
judgment to the Department of Justice of the Volgograd Regional Administration
(Управление юстиции администрации
Волгоградской области), which on 16 February 1999 forwarded
her complaint to the bailiff"s service of the first instance court for reply and
necessary measures.
In an undated letter of 1999, the bailiff"s service
informed the applicant that it had issued a writ of execution, but had not yet
received from the defendant the sum due to the applicant.
10. According
to the Governments submissions, which were not contested by the applicant, the
sum of RUR 467.56 was paid to her twice - on 29 September 2000 and on 9 October
2002.
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 § 1 of the
Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
13. The
applicant complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment in her
favour. 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 contested the
admissibility of the application on the grounds that the judgment concerned had
been executed and the applicant had failed to challenge the bailiff"s actions in
court, i.e. she had not exhausted the domestic remedies. Furthermore, the
applicant had failed to initiate any domestic proceedings with respect to her
claim for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement of
the judgment in her favour.
15. The applicant maintained that she
complained against the bailiff"s inactivity to the Department of Justice of the
Volgograd Regional Administration.
16. 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).
17. As to
the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant, the Court
reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, which sets out the rule on
exhaustion of domestic remedies, provides for a distribution of the burden of
proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the
Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice
at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was
capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant"s complaints and
offered reasonable prospects of success. However, once this burden of proof has
been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced
by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and
ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed
special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see Selmouni v.
France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V).
The only remedies which
Article 35 of the Convention requires to be exhausted are those that relate to
the breaches alleged and at the same time are available and sufficient. The
existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but
also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and
effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various
conditions are satisfied (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], No. 57220/00, § 15,
ECHR 2002-VIII).
18. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that
the Government put forward no reasons why an action against the bailiff"s
service should be considered an effective remedy. There is no suggestion that it
was inefficiency of the bailiff"s service which prevented the enforcement of the
judgment at issue. In fact, the Government conceded that the delays in
enforcement of the judgment concerned had been caused by circumstances beyond
the bailiff"s control. Apparently, the reason for the delay was the lack of
funds. The Court therefore finds that an action against the bailiff"s service
would not have enhanced the applicant"s prospects of receiving her award. The
Court considers that in the present case it could not be said to have
constituted an effective remedy against non-enforcement (see Plotnikovy v.
Russia, No. 43883/02, § 17, 24 February 2005).
19. The Court therefore
does not accept that the applicant was required to exhaust domestic remedies
through a further court action against the bailiff"s service.
20. The
Court observes 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 stressed that the judgment in
the applicant"s favour had been executed. The delays in the enforcement of the
judgment had been caused by circumstances beyond the bailiff"s control. At the
relevant time, the Bailiff"s Service of the Volgograd Region had had to deal
with more than 18,000 enforcement documents concerning recovery of child benefit
arrears totalling RUR 18,500,000.
22. The applicant maintained her
complaints.
23. The Court observes that the judgment of 21 September 1998
remained inoperative for about two years. No acceptable 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 two
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.
Application of Article 41 of the Convention
27. 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."
28.
The applicant claimed RUR 100,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage.
29. The Government objected to the claim, noting that the
applicant had not initiated any settlement of this issue in domestic
courts.
30. The Court notes that the applicant has not submitted any
documents supporting her claim for pecuniary damage. The Court does not discern
any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it
therefore rejects this claim.
31. 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).
FOR THESE REASONS,
THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention;
4. Dismisses 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
