[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF NEOFITA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 3311/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 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 Neofita v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 3311/06) 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 Nikolayevna
Neofita (“the applicant”), on 23 November 2005.
- 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 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 1960 and lives in the town of Neryungri in the
Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
- On
11 July 2003 the Neryungri Town Court accepted the applicant's claim
against the Government of the Russian Federation and awarded her
72,967 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 2,110 euros) in
compensation for a special-purpose settlement order by the terms of
which the Government was to provide her with a car in exchange for
payments extracted from the applicant's salary and benefits related
to her employment in the Far-Northern Region of Russia. The judgment
was upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003 by the Supreme Court of the
Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
- The
Neryungri Town Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution
which she submitted to the Ministry of Finance in November 2003.
- At
the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment of 11
July 2003, as upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003, remained
unenforced.
- According
to the Government, on 31 March 2006 the Federal Treasury of the Sakha
(Yakutiya) Republic successfully initiated a supervisory review of
the judgment of 11 July 2003.
- On
24 August 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha
(Yakutiya) Republic reviewed the judgment of 11 July 2003, as upheld
on appeal on 25 August 2003, and ordered that the Ministry of Finance
should pay the applicant RUR 33,201.49 (approximately 980 euros) .
- Enforcement
proceedings were instituted in respect of the judgment of 24 August
2006. The applicant did not submit any information concerning the
outcome of those proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 11
July 2003, as upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003. 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, 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. Submissions by the parties
- In
their observations submitted to the Court on 12 July 2006, the
Government argued that the judgment of 11 July 2003, as upheld on
25 August 2003, could not be enforced because the domestic
courts had incorrectly assessed the facts of the applicant's case and
misapplied the law. Thus, on 31 March 2006 the Federal Treasury of
the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, on behalf of the Ministry of Finance,
made recourse to the supervisory-review procedure. The Government
further submitted that in 2005 and 2006 Russian courts had reviewed
the final judgments taken in 2002 and 2003 “in accordance with
the position of the Russian Federation Ministry of Finance”.
- The
applicant maintained her complaints.
The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
- 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.
2. Merits
- Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that on 11 July
2003 the applicant obtained a judgment by which the Government was to
pay her a certain sum of money. The judgment of 11 July 2003 was
upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003 and became enforceable on that
date. From that moment on, it was incumbent on the debtor, a State
body, to comply with it. The Town Court issued the applicant with a
writ of execution and it was submitted to the debtor in November
2003. However, no attempts were made to execute the judgment. On 24
August 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha
(Yakutiya) Republic reviewed the judgments of 11 July and 25 August
2003 and awarded the applicant a reduced sum of money to be paid by
the Ministry of Finance.
- It
follows that at least from 25 August 2003 to 24 August 2006 the
judgment of 11 July 2003 was enforceable and it was incumbent on the
State to abide by its terms (cf. Velskaya v. Russia, no.
21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006).
- The
Government cited the initiation of the supervisory-review proceedings
in respect of the judgment of 11 July 2003 as the sole reason for its
non-enforcement. In this respect, the Court reiterates that it has
recently addressed and dismissed the same argument by the Government
in the case of Sukhobokov v. Russia (no. 75470/01, 13 April
2006). In particular, the Court held that “the quashing of the
judgment, which did not respect the principle of legal certainty and
the applicant's “right to a court”, cannot be accepted as
a reason to justify the non-enforcement of the judgment” (see
Sukhobokov, cited above, § 26, and Velskaya, cited
above, §§ 19-21).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government did not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present
case. The Government did not advance any other justification for the
failure to enforce the judgment of 11 July 2003, as upheld on appeal
on 25 August 2003. Having regard to its case-law on the subject
(see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00,
ECHR 2002 III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina
v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v.
Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds
that by failing to comply with the judgment of 11 July 2003 in the
applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated her right to a
court and prevented her from receiving the money which she was
entitled to receive.
- The
Court finds accordingly that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of
non-enforcement of the judgment of 11 July 2003, as upheld on appeal
25 August 2003.
II. 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 RUR 72.967 in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing the sum of the judgment award made in her favour on 11
July 2003. She further claimed EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government argued that the applicant's claims were excessive,
unreasonable and unsubstantiated. In any event, the finding of a
violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
- The
Court recalls that in the instant case it found a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
in that the judicial decision in the applicant's favour was not
enforced. The Court notes 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, and Sukhobokov,
cited above, § 34). The applicant was prevented from
receiving money she had legitimately expected to receive under the
judgment of 11 July 2003. Deducting the sum which the applicant
was awarded under the final judgment of 24 August 2006, the Court,
accordingly, awards the applicant RUR 39,766 in respect of pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. Making its assessment
on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,700 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claims for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court.
- Accordingly,
the Court does not award anything under this head.
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 application admissible;
- 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, the following amounts:
(i) RUR 39,766 (thirty-nine thousand seven hundred and sixty-six
Russian roubles) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,700 (two thousand and seven hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of the 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Loukis Loucaides
Registrar President
