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 PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications
nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03, 24486/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 June 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 Pridatchenko 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,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni, judges,
and
Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 31 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in four applications (nos. 2191/03, 3104/03,
16094/03, 24486/03) 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
four Russian nationals, Mr Aleksandr Grigoryevich Pridatchenko,
Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Manatov, Mr Andrey Vladimirovich Sychev, and
Mr Aleksey Sergeyevich Frolov (“the applicants”), on 25
August 2001, 20 November 2002, 26 April 2003, and 26 June 2003
respectively.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicants alleged violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 in that the respondent State failed to enforce final
judgments in their favour.
- On
25 November 2003 the Court decided to communicate the applications 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 their admissibility.
- The
applicants and the Government each filed observations on the
admissibility and merits (Rule 54A § 1 of the Rules of Court).
- On
31 May 2007 the Chamber decided to join the proceedings in the four
applications (Rule 42 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- At
the time of the described events Mr Pridatchenko (born in 1965),
Mr Sychev (born in 1970), and Mr Frolov (born in 1969) were
active military officers. Mr Manatov (born in 1970) was a
retired military officer. On different dates they sued their actual
or former employers, respective military
units, in courts. The applicants claimed
payment of their salaries, various service-related benefits due to
them, provision of free housing, compensation of travel expenses,
compensation of damages, etc. In all cases the courts ruled in their
favour (at least in part of their claims) making monetary awards.
However, for some time the judgments in their favour remained
unenforced.
A. Mr Pridatchenko
- On
16 November 2001 the Sertolovo Garrison Military Court granted in
part the applicant's claims concerning free housing due to him under
the military service contract. The court also awarded the applicant
2,015 Russian roubles (RUR) for legal costs. That judgment was
not appealed against and became final on 27 November 2001.
- On
26 November 2001 the Sertolovo Garrison Military Court granted the
applicant's claims concerning the amount of compensation of his
travel expenses awarding him arrears in the amount of RUR 93,731.70,
plus RUR 15 for legal costs. That judgment was not appealed
against and became final on 13 December 2001.
- On
8 February 2002 the Sertolovo Garrison Military Court at the
applicant's request held unlawful the refusal to dismiss the
applicant from military service and awarded him RUR 2,015 for
legal costs. That judgment was not appealed against and became final
on 19 February 2002.
- On
8 February 2002 the court issued a writ of execution on the basis of
the judgment of 26 November 2001. The applicant forwarded it with
accompanying documents to the State treasury office of the Leningrad
Region. On 16 July 2002 the writ was returned to the applicant
unexecuted. The treasury office explained that the debtor had no
available funds which could be used for paying off the judgment debt.
The applicant was advised to address the writ of execution to the
head office of the Ministry of Finance in Moscow,
which he did on 23 August 2002. However, the judgment remained
unexecuted.
12. On
2 September 2002 the court issued two writs of execution on the basis
of the judgments of 16 November 2001 and 8 February 2002 (concerning
the legal costs awarded to the applicant). The applicant forwarded
them with accompanying documents to the State treasury office of the
Leningrad Region. On 10 September 2002 the treasury office returned
the unexecuted writs to the applicant referring to the lack of funds
on the debtor's account. The applicant was advised to address the
writs to the head office of the Ministry of Finance,
which he did on 12 September 2002. However, the writs remained
unexecuted.
- On
28 April 2003 the Ministry of Finance allocated from the State budget
to the Ministry of Defence RUR 93,746.70 in the applicant's name with
reference to the writ of execution issued on 8 February 2002 on the
basis of the judgment of 26 November 2001.
- On
23 September 2003 the Ministry of Finance allocated from the State
budget to the Ministry of Defence RUR 2,015 in
the applicant's name with reference to the writ of execution issued
on 2 September 2002 on the basis of the judgment of 16 November 2001.
- On
29 September 2003 the Ministry of Finance allocated from the State
budget to the Ministry of Defence RUR 2,015 in
the applicant's name with reference to the writ of execution issued
on 2 September 2002 on the basis of the judgment of 8 February 2002.
- According
to the applicant, the aforementioned amounts were transferred to his
account on 10 January 2004. He submitted copies of banking receipts
as evidence in that respect.
B. Mr Manatov
- On
8 October 2001 the Kurtamysh District Court of the Kurgan Region
granted the claims awarding him RUR 33,210 of salary arrears. The
judgment was not appealed against and became final on 19 October
2001.
- On
13 December 2001 the court issued a writ of execution. The applicant
sent it to the bailiff's office. On 28 February 2002 the bailiff's
office returned the unexecuted writ to the applicant and advised him
to forward it to the Moscow City Specialised Branch of the State
treasury.
- On
27 April 2002 the forenamed branch of the State treasury returned the
unexecuted writ to the applicant and explained that it was not
responsible for financial obligations of the debtor military unit,
apparently in accordance with a territorial jurisdiction principle.
- It
appears that the judgment of the Kurtamysh District Court of the
Kurgan Region of 8 October 2001 has not yet been executed.
C. Mr Sychev
- On 23 April 2002 the Far-East Command
Military Court by the final decision awarded the applicant RUR 4,000
for non-pecuniary damages caused by the refusal to grant the
applicant annual leave.
- On
18 May 2002 the court issued a writ of execution on the basis of the
judgment of 23 April 2002. The applicant forwarded it with
accompanying documents to the treasury office of Belogorsk
town. On 14 June 2002 the writ was
returned to the applicant unexecuted. The Belogorsk
town treasury office advised the applicant that it was not competent
to deal with such requests.
- On
an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant sued his military unit for
the refusal to send him for a medical examination, whereas his state
of health was deteriorating. He claimed non-pecuniary damages in that
respect. On 5 July 2002 the Belogorsk Garrison Military Court granted
the applicant's claims awarding him RUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary
damages, plus RUR 10 for legal costs. The judgment was not appealed
against and became final on 19 July 2002. On 7 March 2003 the court
issued a writ of execution on the basis of the judgment of 5 July
2002.
- On
an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant sent both the writs of
18 May 2002 and 7 March 2003 to the local bailiff's office and
to the town treasury office. On 11 April 2003 the Belogorsk town
treasury office paid the applicant RUR 1,000 on account of the
judgment of 5 July 2002. On the same date they informed the applicant
that the debtor had no money for paying off the rest of the judgment
debt; the applicant was advised to address himself to the head office
of the Ministry of Finance. On 23 April 2003 the bailiff's office
returned both writs unexecuted and advised the applicant to forward
them to the treasury office.
- On
an unspecified date in February 2004 the judgments of 23 April 2002
and 5 July 2002 were enforced in full.
D. Mr Frolov
- On
29 August 2001 the Petrozavodsk Garrison Military Court granted the
applicant's claims concerning compensation of his travel expenses,
and awarded him arrears in the amount of RUR 74,360.70.
It appears that the judgment was not appealed against and became
final.
- However,
for some time the judgment of 29 August 2001 remained unexecuted.
Referring to that fact the applicant brought proceedings requesting
indexation of the judicial award due to him.
- On
3 February 2003 the Petrozavodsk Garrison Military Court granted the
applicant's claims and awarded him damages caused by non-enforcement
of the judgment of 29 August 2001 in the amount of RUR 30,629.91
and RUR 1,030 for legal costs. That judgment
was not appealed against and became final on 14 February 2003.
- On
20 March 2003 a writ of execution was issued. The
applicant forwarded it with accompanying documents to the State
treasury office of the Republic of Karelia. On 1 April 2003 the writ
was returned to the applicant unexecuted. The treasury office
explained that the debtor had no available funds which could be used
for paying off the judgment debt. The applicant was advised to send
the writ of execution to the head office of the Ministry of
Finance, which he did on 4 April 2003. However,
the judgment of 3 February 2003 remained unexecuted.
- On
9 October 2003 the judgment of 29 August 2001 was enforced in full.
The applicant informed the Court about this fact; however, he
maintained his complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment
of 3 February 2003.
31. On
16 February 2004 the Ministry of Finance allocated from the State
budget to the Ministry of Defence RUR 31,659.91
in the applicant's name with reference to the writ of
execution of 20 March 2003 relating to the judgment of 3 February
2003.
- According
to the applicant, the aforementioned amount was transferred to his
bank account on 7 April 2004. He submitted a copy of a banking
receipt as evidence in that respect.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Enforcement of judgments against budget-funded
institutions
- The Russian Law on Enforcement Proceedings (no. 119-ФЗ
of 21 July 1997) designates the court bailiffs' service as the
authority charged with enforcement of court decisions (Section 3 §
1). Court judgments can also be executed by tax authorities, banks,
financial institutions, other organisations, State officials and
individuals – all of them are not considered to be the
enforcement authorities (Section 5).
- Section
110 of the Law on Federal Budget for the Year 2001 (no. 150-ФЗ
of 27 December 2000) provided that writs of execution issued against
the treasury of the Russian Federation were to be sent for execution
to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and were to be
executed in accordance with the procedure established by the Russian
Government. A similar provision was included in Section 128 of the
Law on Federal Budget for the Year 2002. However, Section 122 of the
Law on Federal Budget for the Year 2003 (no. 176-ФЗ
of 24 December 2002) established, in addition to the similar
requirement that writs of execution were to be submitted to the
Ministry of Finance, that the court bailiffs could not enforce
judgments against the Russian Federation.
- On
22 February 2001 the Russian Government approved “Rules on
recovery of funds due on the basis of the writs of execution issued
by the courts on account of monetary obligations of the recipients of
federal budget funds” (“the Rules”). Sections 2 and
3 of the Rules provide that the creditor must submit the writ of
execution and a copy of the judgment to the office of the federal
treasury where the debtor has its current account. The federal
treasury office must grant the recovery within three working days in
the part not exceeding the balance of the account (Section 5). Should
the balance of the account be insufficient for a full recovery, the
writ of execution must be returned to the creditor who can then apply
to the Ministry of Finance to recover the outstanding amount from the
debtor's funding entity (Section 6).
- On
9 September 2002 the Russian Government adopted Decree no. 666
which enacted the “Rules of Execution by the Ministry of
Finance of court judgments against the Treasury of the Russian
Federation arising from the claims for damages caused by unlawful
acts or omissions of the State authorities or State officials”.
The procedure of execution of such judgments provided by the Rules of
2002 was essentially the same as provided by the Rules of 22 February
2001 cited above.
- On
19 July 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation delivered
judgment no. ГКПИ 2001-864 concerning
the lawfulness of certain provisions of the Rules. In particular, the
court held that the Rules did not govern the enforcement of court
judgments because the federal treasury was not an enforcement body,
pursuant to Section 5 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. In
subsequent judgment no. ГКПИ 2001-1345
of 22 October 2001 the court clarified its position as follows:
“The contents of the contested Rules indicate that
they do not govern the procedure for enforcement of court decisions,
rather they establish the procedure for voluntary execution of court
decisions and for recovery of funds under monetary obligations of
recipients of the federal budget funds...
The court also has regard to the fact that the contested
Rules do not prevent the creditor from resorting to the enforcement
proceedings in respect of a court decision...”
- In
judgments nos. ГКПИ 2001-1790 and
2002-139 of 27 February 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation confirmed that neither the Rules, nor the Laws on Federal
Budgets for 2001 and 2002 prevented the creditor from seeking
enforcement of a court judgment in accordance with the procedure set
out in the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the Law on Court Bailiffs
and the Code of Civil Procedure. Finally, the Supreme Court again
upheld this position in judgment no. ГКПИ
2001-1482 of 28 March 2002.
- On
20 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its
decision no. KAC 03-205 ruled that the Rules, adopted by
Decree no. 666 of 9 September 2002, concerned the voluntary execution
of court decisions against the Federal treasury and did not prevent
the creditor from seeking enforcement through the court bailiffs.
B. Military courts
- The
functioning of military courts is regulated by the Constitution, the
Law on Judicial System of 31 December 1996, the Law on Military
Courts of 23 June 1999. Military courts belong to the judicial system
of the Russian Federation, they are courts of general jurisdiction
exercising judicial power in the armed forces. military courts are
established or dissolved by a federal law. Military courts are
organised in the places of stationing of military units. Military
courts administer justice on behalf of the Russian Federation
examining cases in their jurisdiction by way of civil, administrative
and criminal proceedings. In particular, military courts examine
complaints of military personnel against acts or omissions of
military officials or military command. Such cases are examined
pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Proceedings. Military
courts administer justice independently subject only to the
Constitution, federal constitutional laws and federal laws. The
judges of the military courts are appointed by the President and
should have a military rank, in addition to a law degree and
necessary qualifications.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the lengthy non-payment of the sums
awarded to them by the domestic courts breached their “right to
a court” and the right to peaceful enjoyment of their
possessions. Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention, relied on by the applicants, insofar as relevant,
read as follows:
Article 6
“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. Parties' submissions
- The
Government contested the applicants' arguments. According to them,
the judgments in favour of Mr Pridatchenko and Mr Frolov were fully
enforced when the amounts due to them were allocated from the State
budget. Thus, the judgments in favour of Mr Pridatchenko were
enforced in April and September 2003. The judgment in favour of Mr
Frolov had been enforced on 16 February 2004. On that ground the
Government concluded that the applicants' rights under the Convention
had not been violated.
- As
regards Mr Manatov and Mr Sychev, the Government claimed that they
had not complied with the domestic formalities. Thus, Mr Manatov
failed to forward the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance.
Mr Sychev did not submit to the Ministry of Finance the
necessary application form with his banking information and the writ
of execution, as required by Decree no. 666. As a result, the
judgments in their favour could not be enforced.
- Mr
Pridatchenko and Mr Frolov maintained their submissions.
Mr Pridatchenko insisted that the judgments had been executed on
10 January 2004, when the amounts due had been credited to his
banking account. Mr Frolov indicated that the judgment had been
executed on 7 April 2004. In their view, the delays in the
execution of the judgments were unlawful and unjustified. As regards
Mr Manatov and Mr Sychev, they simply maintained their initial
arguments.
B. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that at the moment of the events the applicants (except
for Mr Manatov) were active military officers, and their disputes
concerned different conditions of their employment. Until recently,
employment disputes between the State and its military personnel were
not, as a rule, regarded as “civil” within the meaning of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and thus fell outside of the
Court's competence ratione materiae (see Pellegrin v.
France [GC], no. 28541/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1999-VIII;
see also Kanayev v. Russia, no. 43726/02, § 16, 27
July 2006).
- However,
in a recent judgment Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland
[GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, 19 April 2007 the Grand Chamber
developed the existing case-law proposing a new criteria of
applicability of Article 6 to such disputes. Henceforth, Article 6
under its “civil” head shall be applicable to all
disputes involving civil servants, unless (a) the national law
expressly excludes access to a court for the post of category of
staff in question, and (b) this exclusion is justified on objective
grounds in the State's interest. The Court further emphasised that
“there can in principle be no justification for the exclusion
from the guarantees of Article 6 of ordinary labour disputes, such as
those relating to salaries, allowances or similar entitlements, on
the basis of the special nature of relationship between the
particular civil servant and the State in question”.
- Turning
to the present case the Court notes that the applicants' claims were
accepted, examined, and partially granted by the domestic courts
following ordinary rules of civil procedure. It is true that the
cases of Mr Pridatchenko, Mr Sychev and Mr Frolov were examined by
military courts, i.e. the courts composed of military personnel and
attached not to a particular administrative territorial unit, but to
a garrison. However, nothing suggests that the military courts are
not “tribunals” within the meaning of Article 6.
Therefore, the applicants, despite their special status, were not
excluded by the domestic law from the “access to a court”
within the meaning of Article 6. Basing on the test developed in the
case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others, the Court concludes that
Article 6 is applicable to the domestic proceedings at issue.
- The
Court notes that the Government did not put forward any formal
objection concerning the admissibility of the present four
applications. The Court considers, in the light of the parties'
submissions, that the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about delays in the
enforcement of the court judgments in the applicants' favour raise
serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the
determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The
Court concludes therefore that these complaints are not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. No other ground for declaring them inadmissible has been
established.
C. Merits
1. General principles
- The
Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the
right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations
brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the
“right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is
the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters,
constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be illusory if a
Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final, binding
judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one
party. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be
regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the
purposes of Article 6 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00,
§ 34, ECHR 2002-III, and Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of
19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II,
p. 510, § 40).
- Further,
the Court reiterates that a “claim” can constitute a
“possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable – for
example, by virtue of a court judgment (see Burdov v. Russia,
cited above, § 28, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis
Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no.
301-B, p. 84, § 59). As the Court held in a number of previous
cases, the impossibility for a successful litigant to have a judgment
in his favour fully enforced, which persisted for a relatively long
period of time, constitutes an interference with his right to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
2. Application to the present case
- In
their initial applications the above applicants complained about the
non-payment of the amounts awarded to them by the respective military
courts. As regards Mr Manatov, it appears that the court judgment in
his favour remains unexecuted to date. The Court notes, at the same
time, that the judgments in respect of Mr Pridatchenko, Mr Frolov and
Mr Sychev had been finally enforced, although with certain delays.
However, in the Court's opinion, those three applicants can still
claim to be victims under Article 6 § 1 or Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention: the Court has always regarded a
delayed execution of a final court judgement of pecuniary nature as
an interference per se, irrespectively of whether or not the
judgment has been finally enforced.
(a) As regards Mr Pridatchenko and Mr
Frolov
- As
regards Mr Pridatchenko and Mr Frolov, the parties' submissions as to
the exact dates of execution of the judgments differ substantially.
The Government asserted that the judgments had been fully enforced on
the dates of allocation of the amounts due to the applicants from the
State budget. The applicants insisted that the judgments had been
enforced when the money had been credited to their bank accounts.
- In
the view of the Court, the very fact of allocation of the budgetary
funds in the applicants' names did not provide them with an
opportunity to freely dispose of the amounts due to them. The
applicants could profit from the judicial awards only when the money
was transferred to their respective bank accounts. Accordingly, the
Court accepts the applicants' assertion of the delays in the
enforcement of the judgments, and notes that, as regards
Mr Pridatchenko, such delays amounted to two years, one month
and thirteen days as regards the judgment of 16 November 2001; two
years and twenty-eight days as regards the judgment of 26 November
2001; and one year, ten months and twenty-one days as regards the
judgment of 8 February 2002. As to Mr Frolov, the Court notes that
the judgment of 3 February 2003, which was at the heart of the
applicant's complaints, was enforced with a delay of one year, one
month and twenty-two days.
- 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, §§ 34 et seq.; see also
Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 35 et seq.;
Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, §§ 19 et
seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, cited above, §§
23 et seq.; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, §§ 35
et seq., 18 November 2004). The Court observes that the
Government have not advanced a plausible justification for the delays
occurred in the cases of the above two applicants. Considering the
length of the periods of non-enforcement of court judgments in cases
of Mr Pridatchenko and Mr Frolov, and having examined all relevant
circumstances, the Court does not see any reason to depart from its
previous case-law and concludes that the delayed execution of the
judgments in favour of Mr Pridatchenko and Mr Frolov constituted a
breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
(b) As regards Mr Manatov
- The
Government claimed that the judgment in favour of Mr Manatov was not
enforced because he had failed to follow a proper procedure. The
Court notes that in order to obtain the execution of the judgment in
his favour Mr Manatov firstly addressed the bailiff's office. Then,
upon receipt of the refusal to enforce the judgment, he forwarded the
writ to another State agency indicated by the bailiffs. It is true
that the agency refused to execute the writ referring to certain
jurisdiction principles; however, it did not indicate to the
applicant which agency was competent to enforce the judgment in the
latter's favour. In any event, the regulations on enforcement, to
which the Government referred, did not preclude the applicant from
seeking the enforcement in a normal way, that is through the bailiffs
(see the “Relevant domestic law” part above; see also
Shvedov v. Russia, no. 69306/01, § 34, 20 October 2005), and
the Government did not deny that the applicant had made recourse to
that authority.
- Furthermore,
the Court recalls that a person who has obtained an enforceable
judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation
cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to
have it executed (see Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §
19, 27 May 2004). The Court further recalls that it is incumbent on
the State to organise its legal system in such a way that ensures
co-ordination between various enforcement agencies and secures
honouring of the State's judgment debts in good time. It would impose
an excessive burden on the applicant if he has to forward the writ of
execution from one competent State agency to another (see Reynbakh
v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23, 29 September 2005). The Court
does not see any reason to depart from its findings in the Reynbach
case, and concludes that Mr Manatov took reasonable steps to
obtain execution of the judgment in his favour.
- The
Court finally observes that according to the information provided by
the parties the judgment in favour of Mr Manatov is not enforced to
date; in other words, the delay in the enforcement constitutes five
years and eight months. In line with its well-established case-law on
this subject (see above) the Court concludes that the prolonged
non-enforcement of the judgment in favour of Mr Manatov constituted a
breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
(c) As regards Mr Sychev
- The
Government claimed that the non-enforcement of the judgments in
favour of Mr Sychev could not be imputed to the authorities since the
applicant had failed to comply with the domestic formalities required
for obtaining his award. However, the Court has certain doubts
as to what was the genuine reason for the non-enforcement of the
judgments. Whereas in 2002 the town treasury office informed the
applicant that they had no competence to deal with the writ of
execution of 18 May 2002, in 2003 the
town treasury office refused to pay against the writ of execution of
7 March 2003 referring to the lack of funds. The Court recalls in
this respect that the lack of funds is not a good excuse for the
State to refuse paying off a judgment debt (see Burdov, cited
above, § 41).
- In
any event, having in mind its case-law on enforcement of court
judgments against the State (see Metaxas and Reynbakh,
both cited above), the Court finds that the applicant took reasonable
steps to obtain execution of the judgment in his favour.
- The
Court further observes that the parties did not provide information
as to the exact dates of execution of the judgments in the
applicant's favour. However, it was undisputed that both judgments
were fully executed only in February 2004. Hence, the delays in the
enforcement amount to one year and some nine months as regards the
judgment of 23 April 2002, and one year and some six months as
regards the judgment of 5 July 2002. The Court, in line with its
previous case-law (see above), concludes that the delayed execution
of the judgments in favour of Mr Sychev constituted a breach of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention.
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. Mr Pridatchenko
-
The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) on account of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage sustained by him as a result of the delays in
the enforcement of the judgments in his favour. He can be understood
as claiming that, due to the delayed enforcement, the money awarded
to him lost a part of its purchasing power. In support of his claims
the applicant produced official statistics reflecting inflation rates
in the Leningrad region between 1999 and 2003. Further, he claimed
that the delays in the enforcement caused him mental suffering and
the feeling of humiliation.
- When
commenting on the applicant's claims for non-pecuniary damage, the
Government suggested that a finding of a violation would by itself
constitute sufficient just satisfaction. Alternatively, they
suggested that a compensation similar to one awarded in the case
Burdov (cited above, § 47) would suffice. In any
event, in their view, the amount of this compensation should not
exceed EUR 1,500.
- The
Court notes that the judgments of 16 November 2001 (awarding the
applicant 2,015 Russian roubles (RUR)),
of 26 November 2001 (awarding the applicant RUR
93,746.70), and of 8 February 2002 (awarding the applicant RUR 2,015)
were not enforced until January 2004. As follows from the
information provided by the applicant and not contested by the
Government, the inflation rate between December 2001 and December
2003 amounted to 133 per cent. Therefore, the applicant's pecuniary
losses caused by the delayed payment of the above amounts constituted
RUR 665 on account of the first judgment and RUR 30,936 on account of
the second judgment. As to the third judgment, the inflation rate
between March 2002 and December 2003 constituted 125.5 per cent.
Therefore, the applicant's pecuniary loss in respect of the third
judgment was equal to RUR 513.80. In sum, because of the delayed
payment of the amounts awarded by the courts in 2001 and 2002, and
the monetary depreciation during the relevant period, the applicant
lost RUR 32,114.80. That sum should be awarded to the applicant on
account of pecuniary damages, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
that amount.
- As
to the non-pecuniary damages, the Court considers that the delays in
the enforcement could have indeed caused certain mental distress to
the applicant, which cannot sufficiently be compensated by the
finding of a violation. The Court takes into account the nature and
the amount of the awards, the delays before the enforcement and other
relevant aspects. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it
awards the applicant EUR 1,600, to be converted into Russian
roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect
of non-pecuniary damages, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Mr Manatov
- The
Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim
for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing
together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, “failing
which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part”.
67. In
the case of Mr Manatov, on 4 March 2004 the Court invited the
applicant to submit his claims for just satisfaction before 15 April
2004. However, the applicant did not submit any such claims within
the specified time limit, neither did he request the Court to
grant an extension of time.
- In
view of the above, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the
Convention (see, for example, Şirin v. Turkey, no.
47328/99, §§ 27-29, 15 March
2005, and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, §§
43-46, 18 November 2004). However, that finding does not relieve
the State from complying with the Court's judgment in the present
case by enforcing the judgment in the applicant's favour, if it has
not been enforced to date.
C. Mr Sychev
1. Pecuniary damage
- The
applicant claimed that he sustained pecuniary damage in the amount of
RUR 37,400 that he had paid as the faculty of law's tuition fees. He
explained that he needed legal education to bring his case before the
Court. The Government objected claiming that lodging an application
with the Court did not require any specific legal training. The Court
agrees with the Government and finds no causal link between the
violation found and the damage claimed. Accordingly, the Court sees
no reason to grant any award under this head.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
- The
applicant claimed non-pecuniary damage in the amount to be determined
by the Court. The Government suggested that a finding of a violation
would by itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction. The Court
considers that the delays in the enforcement could have indeed caused
certain mental distress to the applicant, which cannot sufficiently
be compensated by the finding of a violation. The Court takes into
account the nature and the amount of the awards, the delays before
the enforcement and other relevant aspects. Making its assessment on
an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 1,200 under the head
of non-pecuniary damages, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
D. Mr Frolov
- The
applicant claimed EUR 10,000 on account of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage sustained by him as a result of the delay in the
enforcement of the judgment in his favour. In support of his claims
for pecuniary damages the applicant referred to the official
statistics on the inflation rate in the Karelia region where he lived
at the material time. As to the non-pecuniary damages claimed the
applicant produced medical reports showing that the state of health
of the members of his family had deteriorated. The Government made no
comments on the applicant's claims under Article 41.
- The
Court recalls that the judgment of the Petrozavodsk Garrison Military
Court of 3 February 2003, awarding the applicant RUR 31,659.91, was
enforced on 7 April 2004. The official statistics produced by the
applicant covered the period until December 2003. From that
statistics it follows that by the end of 2003 the judicial award
should have lost RUR 2,631.80 of its purchasing power. That sum
should be awarded to the applicant on account of pecuniary damage
sustained by him, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
- As
to the non-pecuniary damages, the Court does not see any causal link
between the non-enforcement complained of and the medical problems of
the applicant's relatives. At the same time the Court notes that the
award due to the applicant was of a considerably large amount, and
that the delay in the enforcement could have indeed caused certain
mental distress to him. The Court therefore awards the applicant
under this head the sum of EUR 800 to be converted into Russian
roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement plus any tax
that may be chargeable on that amount.
E. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest, in respect
of the awards made above, 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 complaints under Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
on account of the delayed enforcement of the judgments in the
applicants' favour;
- 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 domestic court's judgment of 8 October 2001 in favour of Mr
Manatov;
(b) that
the respondent State, within the same period, shall pay the following
amounts:
(i) to
Mr Pridatchenko, RUR 32,114.80 (thirty-two thousand one hundred and
fourteen Russian roubles eighty kopecks) in respect of pecuniary
damage and EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, the latter amount to be converted into Russian
roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(ii) to
Mr Sychev, EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(iii) to
Mr Frolov, RUR 2,631.80 (two thousand six hundred and thirty-one
Russian roubles eighty kopecks) in respect of pecuniary damage and
EUR 800 (eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the
latter amount to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement;
(iv) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(c) 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'
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
