[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KHVOROSTINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 20098/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 April
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 Khvorostina and Others 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 15 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 20098/03) 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 five Russian nationals, whose names are listed
in the schedule, on 20 June 2003.
- 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
24 March 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
applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Korenovsk in
the Krasnodar Region. They are former employees of the Architecture
and Town Planning Department of the Korenovskiy District Council
(hereafter – the Council). The three applicants were employed
as engineers, one as a technician and one as a land engineer.
A. Proceedings for reinstatement and wage arrears
- In January 2001 the applicants were dismissed from
their positions.
- The
applicants sued the Council for reinstatement and wage arrears for
the period from October 2000 to January 2001.
- On
28 March 2001 the Korenovskiy District Court dismissed the
applicants' claims for reinstatement but awarded them the amounts
listed in the schedule. The judgment became final on 22 May 2001 when
the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld it on appeal. The judgment
remains unenforced because the Council does not have necessary funds.
B. Proceedings for wage arrears for the period from
February to April 2001
- The
applicants asked the Justice of the Peace of the 153rd Court Circuit
of the Korenovskiy District to award them wage arrears for the period
from February to April 2001.
- On
20 June 2001 the Justice of the Peace accepted their action against
the Council and awarded them the amounts listed in the schedule. The
judgment was not appealed against and became final.
- Enforcement
proceedings were instituted, but the judgment was not enforced
because the Council did not have funds.
- On
8 August 2002 the sums awarded by the judgment of 20 June 2001 were
credited to the applicants' accounts.
C. Proceedings concerning the protracted
non-enforcement of the judgments
- The
applicants lodged an action against the Council, complaining that the
Council failed to enforce the judgments of 28 March and 20 June
2001. They sought payment of the amounts awarded under those
judgments.
- On
20 November 2002 the Justice of the Peace held that the Council
should pay the applicants compensation for the delay in enforcement
of the judgment of 28 March 2001 for the period from 22 May 2001 to
20 November 2002 (the amounts awarded are listed in the
schedule). The judgment of 20 November 2002 was upheld on appeal on
24 December 2002.
- Enforcement
proceedings were instituted but the judgment of 20 November
2002, as upheld on appeal on 24 December 2002, remains unenforced
because the Council does not have funds.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF PROTRACTED NON-ENFORCEMENT
OF THE JUDGMENTS
- The applicants complained that the judgments of 28
March 2001 and 20 November 2002 remained unenforced and that the
enforcement of the judgment of 20 June 2001 had been delayed. The
Court considers that this complaint falls 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 these 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 the 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 argued that the Council lacked necessary funds for
execution of the judgments in the applicants' favour. They further
submitted that the judgments of 28 March 2001 and 20 November 2002
remained unenforced, and thus, the applicants' rights under Article 6
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were violated. As
regards the judgment of 20 June 2001, the Government submitted that
it was fully enforced on 8 August 2002.
- The
applicants maintained their claims.
- The
Court observes that on 28 March and 20 June 2001 and 28 November
2002 the applicants obtained enforceable judgments by which the
Council, a State body, was to pay them certain sums. The judgments of
28 March 2001 and 20 November 2002 have not been enforced yet. They
thus remain unenforced for several years. The judgment of 20 June
2001 was fully enforced on 8 August 2002 when the sums of arrears
were credited to the applicants' accounts. Thus the judgment of 20
June 2001 remained unenforced for approximately fourteen months.
- 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
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 19 et seq., ECHR 2002 III;
Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; Gerasimova v. Russia,
no. 24669/02, § 17 et seq., 13 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
justifying the delay in enforcement of the judgments. The Court finds
that by failing for years to comply with the enforceable judgments in
the applicants' favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence
of their right to a court and prevented them from receiving the money
they had legitimately expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicants complained that the proceedings which had ended with the
judgment of 20 November 2002 had been unfair in that the courts had
incorrectly assessed evidence and applied the law. They relied on
Articles 6 and 17 of the Convention. The Court considers that the
present complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention.
- In
this respect the Court recalls that it is not a court of appeal from
the decisions of domestic courts and that, as a general rule, it is
for those courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court's task
under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a
whole were fair (see, among many authorities, García Ruiz
v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR
1999-I).
- The
Court observes that on 20 November 2002 the Justice of the Peace
accepted the applicants' claims and made a judgment in their favour.
In this respect, the Court notes that any violations of the
Convention which had allegedly occurred in the course of those
proceedings were rectified by the court's finding in the applicants'
favour. In any event, on the basis of the materials submitted by the
applicants, the Court notes that within the framework of the civil
proceedings the applicants were able to introduce all necessary
arguments in defence of their interests, and the judicial authorities
gave them due consideration.
- 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
applicants claimed sums awarded to them by the judgments of 28 March
2001 and 20 November 2002. They further claimed EUR 10,000 to be paid
to each of them in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicants' claims in respect of the
sums awarded by the judgments of 28 March 2001 and 20 November 2002
were reasonable. As regards the applicants' claims in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, the Government argued that they were excessive.
- The Court notes that the State's outstanding
obligation to enforce the judgments in the
applicants' favour is not in dispute. Accordingly, the applicants are
still entitled to recover the principal amounts of the judgment debts
in the domestic proceedings. The Court recalls that the most
appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is
to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the
position he would have been had the requirements of Article 6 not
been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50),
judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 85, p. 16,
§ 12, and, mutatis mutandis, Gençel v.
Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The
Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well,
having regard to the violations found (cf. Poznakhirina v. Russia,
no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005). It therefore
considers that the Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the
enforcement of the awards made by the domestic courts under the
judgments of 28 March 2001 and 20 November 2002 in the applicants'
favour.
- The
Court further considers that the applicants must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce the judgments in their favour. The Court takes
into account the relevant aspects, such as the length of the
enforcement of the proceedings and the nature of the awards, and
making its assessment on an equitable basis, awards each of the
applicants EUR 3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax
that may be chargeable on the above amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed RUR 5,000 and EUR 5,000 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court, of which
RUR 5,000 represented lawyer's fees and EUR 5,000 other unspecified
costs.
- The
Government submitted that the applicants' claims in respect of the
lawyer's fees were reasonable. They did not comment on the remaining
claims.
- 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 rejects the claim
for EUR 5,000 as the applicants did not submit any receipts or other
vouchers in support of that claim. As regards the claim for legal
expenses, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded
in full, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
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
non-enforcement of the judgments of 28 March and 20 June 2001 and
20 November 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, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of
the awards made by the domestic courts in the applicants' favour
under the judgments of 28 March 2001 and 20 November 2002;
(b)
that the respondent State shall pay each of the applicants, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 3,900 (three thousand and nine hundred 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;
(c)
that the respondent State shall pay the applicants, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
RUR 5,000 (five thousand Russian roubles) in respect of costs and
expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(d) 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 April 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
SCHEDULE
|
NAME
OF THE APPLICANT
|
AWARDS
UNDER THE
JUDGMENT OF
28 MARCH 2001
(RUR)
|
AWARDS
UNDER THE
JUDGMENT OF
20 JUNE 2001
(RUR)
|
AWARDS
UNDER THE
JUDGMENT OF
20 NOVEMBER 2002
(RUR)
|
|
Olga Grigoryevna
Khvorostina
|
13,805.15
|
5,719.56
|
4,404.99
|
|
Aleksandr
Konstantinovich
Kubyshkin
|
16,634.90
|
6,869.92
|
5,307.93
|
|
Lyudmila Vladimirovna
Dankova
|
3,991.50
|
1,713.06
|
1,273.62
|
|
Anna Yuryevna
Prokhorets
|
15,728.84
|
6,810.61
|
5,018.81
|
|
Olga Mikhaylovna
Chunikhina
|
16,237.48
|
6,711.91
|
5,181.09
|
