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 MOKRUSHINA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 23377/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 October
2006
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 Mokrushina v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis,
President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F.
Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application (no. 23377/02)
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 Sergeyevna Mokrushina (“the applicant”), on 1
October 2001.
- The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On 4 April 2005 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
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow.
A. Proceedings for annulment of the contract
- On 22 November 1994 the applicant and her husband
bought a flat. In addition, they agreed to lend a certain sum to the
seller. After the applicant had paid for the flat, the
seller refused to transfer the title and move out. The applicant and
her husband sued her for eviction. The seller counterclaimed and
requested a court to annul the contract and to order restitutio in
integrum.
- On 4 June 1997 the Moscow City Court, in the final
instance, found for the seller.
B. Proceedings concerning compensation for damage and
repayment of the loan
- In June 1999 the applicant sued the seller for return
of the purchase price, repayment of the loan and interest on the
amounts outstanding.
- On 5 March 2001 the Timiryazevskiy District Court
partly accepted the action.
- The applicant's representative, Mr Martyanov, appealed
to the Moscow City Court. He complained that the judgment was unfair
and that the District Court had not given the applicant's arguments
due consideration.
- The Moscow City Court listed an appeal hearing for 2
August 2001 and sent summonses to the applicant and her
representative by post. The representative received the summons on 23
July 2001. The summons was not delivered to the applicant.
- The appeal hearing of 2 August 2001 was adjourned
until 20 August 2001 because the parties defaulted. According to the
Government, summonses for the hearing listed for 20 August 2001 were
mailed to the parties on 13 August 2001. According to the postmark on
the envelope, the summons were dispatched on 17 August 2001 and
received at the applicant's local post office on 11 September 2001.
- On 20 August 2001 the Moscow City Court adjourned the
hearing until 4 September 2001 because the parties did not attend.
According to the Government, the Moscow City Court sent summonses to
the parties by post on 21 August 2001.
- On 4 September 2001 the Moscow City Court examined the
appeal and rejected it. Neither party was present.
- On 4 October 2001 the applicant received a summons for
the hearing that had taken place on 4 September 2001. According to
the postmark on the envelope, the summons was dispatched on 24 August
2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 4 October
2001.
- It appears that the judgment of 5 March 2001, as
upheld on appeal on 4 September 2001, has remained unenforced because
the seller left Moscow and her current place of residence is unknown.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained that the examination of the
appeal without giving her an effective opportunity to attend, had
violated her right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by
[a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
- 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 Government claimed that the applicant had been
notified of the appeal hearings in good time. In any event, the
applicant's presence was not necessary as the appeal court could
decide on the basis of the case-file and the applicant's written
submissions.
- The applicant averred that the Moscow City Court had
failed in its duty to inform her of the appeal hearings and the
Government did not present any evidence to the contrary.
- The Court is not satisfied with the accuracy of the
Government's factual submissions which have not been corroborated
with any evidence, such as summonses, acknowledgments of receipt,
envelopes bearing postmarks, etc. (see, by contrast, Belan v.
Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004; and Bogonos
v. Russia (dec.), no. 68798/01, 5 February 2004).
- The Court observes that the Moscow City Court fixed
three appeal hearings: on 2 and 20 August and 4 September 2001.
The hearings of 2 and 20 August 2000 were adjourned because the
parties defaulted. As it appears from the list of the procedural
events enclosed with the Government's memorandum, the only
acknowledgment of receipt which had returned to the Moscow City Court
indicated that the summons for the hearing of 2 August 2001 had
not been delivered to the applicant. The summons for the hearing of
20 August 2001 reached the applicant on 11 September 2001
(according to the postmark). The Government also claimed that the
summons for the hearing of 4 September 2001 had been dispatched on
21 August 2001. However, the postmark on the envelope showed
that it had been mailed on 24 August 2001 and reached the
applicant on 4 October 2001. In these circumstances, the Court is not
persuaded that the Moscow City Court had notified the applicant of
the appeal hearings in such a way as to provide her with an
opportunity to attend them.
- The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one
in the present case (see Yakovlev v. Russia, no. 72701/01,
§ 19 et seq., 15 March 2005; and Groshev v. Russia,
no. 69889/01, § 27 et seq., 20 October 2005).
- Having examined the materials submitted to it, the
Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in
the present case. The Court has established that owing to belated
notification the applicant has been deprived of an opportunity to
attend the appeal hearings. The Court also notes that there is
nothing in the appeal judgment to suggest that the appeal court
examined the question whether the applicant had been duly summoned
and, if she had not, whether the examination of the appeal should
have been adjourned.
- It follows that there was a violation of the
applicant's right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 6 § 1
of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 6 and
13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the
proceedings in 1997 and 2001 were excessively long, that the judicial
formation included lay assessors, that the courts were not
independent, that they misdirected themselves in law and that the
judgment of 5 March 2001 remained unenforced. However, having regard
to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within the Court's competence ratione temporis,
it 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 this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to 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.”
A. Damage
- The applicant claimed 38,400,000 Russian roubles
(RUR), 53,000 US dollars (USD) and 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage, representing the value of the flat, her loan to the
seller, and interest thereon. The applicant also claimed compensation
in respect of non-pecuniary damage, leaving determination of the
award to the discretion of the Court.
- The Government submitted that the applicant's claims
were excessive, unsubstantial and unreasonable.
- The Court does not discern any causal link between the
violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore
rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court considers that the
applicant must have suffered frustration and a feeling of injustice
as a consequence of the domestic authorities' failure to apprise her
of the appeal hearing in good time. The Court finds that the
applicant suffered non-pecuniary damage, which would not be
adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone.
Accordingly, making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards
the applicant EUR 1,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant did not seek reimbursement of costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings before the domestic courts or
the Convention organs and this is not a matter which the Court has to
examine on its own motion (see Motière v. France, no.
39615/98, § 26, 5 December 2000).
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 complaint concerning the domestic
authorities' failure to apprise the applicant of the appeal hearings
in good time admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- 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 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of the 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
