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 SIVOLDAYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 3906/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 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 Sivoldayeva v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
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 7 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 3906/06) 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 Lyudmila Nikolayevna
Sivoldayeva (“the applicant”), on 25 December 2005.
- The
applicant was represented before the Court by Mr I. Sivoldayev, a
lawyer practising in Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative
of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
9 March 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the non-enforcement of a final judgment in the applicant's
favour 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 1973 and lives in Kalach, the Voronezh Region.
- In
1999 she brought a court action against the Welfare Office of the
Kalacheyevskiy District of the Voronezh Region and the Finance
department of the administration of the Voronezh Region for delays in
payment of child benefits. The court requested the applicant to pay a
court fee of 99 Russian roubles (RUR).
- By
a judgment of 17 January 2000 the Kalacheyevskiy District Court of
the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant RUR 2,148.20. No appeal was
lodged against the judgment and it acquired legal force ten days
later. On an unspecified date the Kalacheyevskiy District Court
issued a writ of execution, but on 26 July 2001 the bailiffs' service
of the Tsentralnyy District of Voronezh discontinued the enforcement
proceedings because the debtor did not have sufficient funds.
- On
25 July 2004 the applicant applied to the bailiffs' service for the
reopening of the enforcement proceedings. On 20 December 2004 the
bailiffs' service returned the writ of execution to the applicant
without enforcement as the debtor did not have sufficient funds.
- On
24 January 2005 the applicant brought a court action against the
bailiffs' service for failure to execute the judgment of 17 January
2000. By a decision of 16 March 2005 the Tsentralnyy District Court
of Voronezh dismissed her complaint. On 19 July 2005 the Voronezh
Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 March 2005, upon the
applicant's appeal, and referred the case back to the first instance
court for fresh examination. By a decision of 5 October 2005 the
Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh again dismissed the
applicant's complaint against the bailiffs' service. On 12 December
2006 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 October
2005.
- In
the meantime, in October 2005, the applicant received RUR 1,402.56
following the judgment of 17 January 2000.
- On
12 May 2006 the applicant received the outstanding debt of RUR 745.64
due to her under the judgment of 17 January 2000.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment
of 17 January 2000. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as
follows:
Article 6 § 1
“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. 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 acknowledged that the judgment of 17 January 2000 was not
enforced in good time. They further conceded that the applicant's
rights set out in Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 were violated as a result of the lengthy
non-enforcement of the final judgment.
- The
applicant maintained her claims.
- The
Court observes that the judgment in the applicant's favour remained
unenforced for several years. No justification was advanced by the
Government who acknowledged a violation of the Convention.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising similar
issues to the ones in the present case (see, among other authorities,
Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court sees no reason for
reaching a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to
its case-law on the subject, 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 had reasonably
expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained under Article 6 about the imposition of a
court fee of RUR 99 and about the length of proceedings against the
bailiffs' service. However, having regard to all the material in its
possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its
competence, the Court 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 2, 596.65 Russian roubles (RUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage, representing the penalty at the marginal interest
rate of the Russian Central Bank on the sum of the judgment debt
calculated from 17 January 2000 to 19 December 2006. She further
claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that no compensation for pecuniary damage should
be awarded to the applicant, because it was open to her to claim it
before the domestic courts. If, however, the Court decides to accept
the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the
compensation should only be awarded for the period of the
non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 January 2000, i.e. between
January 2000 and October 2005. The Government further contested the
applicant's claims for compensation of non-pecuniary damage as
excessive and unreasonable. They submitted that the judgment award
was not the applicant's main source of income, but represented the
arrears on additional allowance for child support. The Government
referred to the Court's judgments in the cases of Kazartsev
v. Russia (no. 26410/02, 2 November 2006) and Poznakhirina
v. Russia (no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005). They considered
that should the Court find a violation in this case that would in
itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Court reiterates, firstly, that applicants cannot be required to
exhaust domestic remedies to obtain compensation for pecuniary loss
since this would prolong the procedure before the Court in a manner
incompatible with the effective protection of human rights (see
Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), judgment
of 31 October 1995, Series A no. 330 B, § 40, and
Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). Nor is
there a requirement that an applicant furnish any proof of the
non-pecuniary damage he or she sustained.
- The
Court further observes that in the present case it has found a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 in that the award in the applicant's favour had not
been paid to her in good time. It recalls that the adequacy of the
compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without
reference to various circumstances liable to reduce the value of the
award, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova v.
Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005). The Court notes
that the Government disagreed with the period for which the applicant
claimed the pecuniary damage, but it did not contest the method of
calculation applied by the applicant. The Court considers that the
period to be taken into consideration started in January 2000 when
the judgment in the applicant's favour acquired legal force and ended
on 12 May 2006 when it was fully enforced. Having regard to the
materials in its possession, the Court awards the applicant EUR
70 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 a judgment in her favour in good time. The Court
takes into account the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage,
the amount and nature of the award. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed RUR 1,400 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court, of which RUR 158.40 and RUR
12.80 represented postal expenses, RUR 99.95 and RUR 50 represented
the court fees. The rest of the amount represented the applicant's
travelling expenses. The applicant submitted
receipts only for postal expenses and for the court-fees.
- The
Government considered that only the applicant's claim for post
services of RUR 158.40 was reasonable and relevant.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
her 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 considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 10
covering costs under all heads.
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 final judgment in the applicant's favour
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 70 (seventy euros) in
respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10 (ten euros) in respect of
costs and expenses, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on these 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 28 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
