[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SINITSYNA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 2814/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
December 2007
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 Sinitsyna 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 N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 2814/04) 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 Grigoryevna
Sinitsyna (“the applicant”), on 14 December 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
7 February 2006 the Court decided to give notice of 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
applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Saransk in the
Mordoviya Republic.
- In
1990 the applicant obtained a State special-purpose commodity bond
(облигация
государственного
целевого
беспроцентного
займа).
By its terms the Government undertook to give her a Russian-made VAZ
passenger car.
- It
appears that in 1993 the applicant requested the State to comply with
its obligation, but it could not be fulfilled for want of cars.
- After
the change in legislation in 1995 and 1996, the applicant became
entitled to compensation in the amount equal to the car value, as
described in the bond and determined in co-ordination with car
manufacturers at the moment of redemption.
- It
appears that in August 1998 the applicant received partial
compensation.
- In
November 1999 she sued the Government for the full market value of
the car.
- By
judgment of 25 April 2002, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk
awarded her 50,400 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of
Finance. On 4 June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Mordoviya Republic
upheld the judgment.
- On
19 June 2002 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings. On
1 July 2002 the bailiff returned the writ of execution to the
applicant. On the same date, the applicant re-submitted it to the
Ministry of Justice. Upon the Ministry's instructions, on 17 July
2002 the applicant forwarded her writ to the Treasury Department in
Moscow.
- By
letter of 26 August 2002 the Treasury returned the writ to the
applicant, indicating that it should be submitted to the Ministry of
Finance. The applicant sent the writ to the Ministry on 10 October
2002
- On
6 December 2002 the Ministry informed the applicant that it would not
enforce the judgment because supervisory-review proceedings had been
pending.
- The
applicant received the monies due to her on 28 April 2006.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 25 April 2002,
as upheld on 4 June 2002, had not been enforced in good time. The
Court considers that this complaint is to be examined under Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see
Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002 III). The relevant parts
of those provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time... 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...”
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 submitted that the judgment of 25 April 2002 had been
enforced in April 2006.
- The
applicant maintained her complaint.
- The
Court observes that the judgment of 25 April 2002 was enforced in
full on 28 April 2006. Thus, it remained without enforcement for
nearly four years.
- 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 Burdov,
cited above, § 35; Wasserman v. Russia, no.
15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; and Gerasimova
v. Russia, no. 24669/02, § 17
et seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
examined the material 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 finds that by failing, for years, to comply with the
enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic
authorities impaired the essence of her right to a court and
prevented her from receiving the money she could reasonably have
expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also submitted other complaints under Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, she
complained about the State's failure to provide her with a car, the
length of the proceedings and the allegedly insufficient amount of
compensation granted in 1998. Finally, she complained that she had
been unable to withdraw those monies from her bank account and that
the money had lost its purchasing value due to inflation.
- The
Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as
submitted by her. However, having regard to all the material in its
possession, it finds that these complaints 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 RUB 25,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. She also
claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage “as
stated in her application form of 14 December 2003”, which
was 100,000 euros (EUR).
- The
Government considered that the applicant's pecuniary claim was
unsubstantiated because she had not explained the method of
calculation and had not submitted any relevant documents. She made no
clear claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage and, in any event, the
finding of a violation would constitute an adequate redress under
that head.
- As
regards pecuniary damage, the Court observes that the applicant has
not submitted any supporting documents, which would confirm her claim
and method of calculation. Accordingly, the Court considers that
there is no call to award the applicant any sum on that account. At
the same time, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered some
distress as a result of the violation found and therefore awards her
EUR 2,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may
be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any claims under this head and the Court
accordingly makes no award in respect of costs and expenses.
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 delay in
the enforcement of the judgment of 25 April 2002 admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and 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 2,400 (two
thousand four hundred 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;
(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 13 December 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
