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 PYLNOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 7111/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
July 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 Pylnov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
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 21 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 7111/05) 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, Mr Vladimir Aleksandrovich
Pylnov (“the applicant”), on 7 February 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr A. Bunchin, a lawyer practising in
Kostroma. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged that the State had failed to honour a judgment
debt.
- On
2 September 2005 the Court decided to communicate 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kostroma.
- On
22 September 2002 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma allowed
the applicant's action against the Kostroma Regional Government and
awarded him 178,752 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 5,500 euros)
as financial aid for housing construction. The District Court found
that the applicant was entitled to 29.4 square metres of surface, and
that the average market price per square metre in Kostroma was RUR
6,080.
- On
20 November 2002 the Kostroma Regional Court upheld the judgment on
appeal. The judgment became enforceable.
- The
applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. On
4 March 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings.
- On
26 March 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement
proceedings because, according to the domestic law, the writs against
the regional governments were to be submitted to the Federal
Treasury.
- The
applicant submitted the writ of execution to the local office of the
Federal Treasury. On 3 April 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay
the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs' service.
- On
7 April 2003 the bailiffs' service for a second time opened
enforcement proceedings. On 6 June 2003 it discontinued the
proceedings.
- In
November 2003 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the
Federal Treasury. On 18 November 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to
pay the award because it did not consider itself liable for the debts
of the Kostroma Regional Government. The applicant challenged that
decision before a court. On 10 November 2004 the
Kostroma Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims in the final
instance as having no basis in the domestic law.
- The
applicant re-submitted the writ of execution to the bailiff's
service. On 27 November 2003 the bailiffs' service for a third time
opened enforcement proceedings.
- On
27 September 2004 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement
proceedings because the debtor had no available funds.
- The
judgment of 22 September 2002 has remained unenforced to date.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained that the continued non-enforcement of the
judgment of 22 September 2002 violated his right of access to a court
enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention and his right to peaceful
enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 ... 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
Government claimed that the applicant had not challenged the
bailiffs' actions before a court. Therefore, he did not exhaust
domestic remedies.
- The
applicant submitted that he had challenged the bailiffs' actions on
several occasions. However, the domestic courts disallowed his claims
under various pretexts.
- The
Court observes that the applicant does not complain about any
unlawful act of a bailiff but rather about the fact that the judgment
in his favour was not enforced. The Government failed to provide any
explanation how an action against the bailiffs could have put an end
to the alleged continuing violation or what kind of redress the
applicant could have been provided with as a result of the action.
Even assuming that the applicant could have brought an action against
the bailiffs and obtained a decision confirming that the
non-enforcement had been unlawful in domestic terms, the outcome of
such an action would only have produced repetitive results, namely a
writ of execution enabling the bailiffs to proceed with the
enforcement of the judgment of 22 September 2002 (compare
Yavorivskaya v. Russia (dec.), no. 34687/02, 13 May 2004).
- The
Court therefore does not accept that the applicant was required to
challenge the bailiffs' actions before a court in order to exhaust
domestic remedies.
- 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.
B. Merits
- The
Government acknowledged that the continued non-enforcement of the
judgment of 22 September 2002 had violated the applicant's rights
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1.
- The
applicant maintained his claims.
- The
Court observes that on 22 September 2002 the applicant obtained a
judgment in his favour against the Kostroma Regional Government. On
20 November 2002 the judgment became enforceable. However, it has not
been enforced to date.
- 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 Reynbakh v. Russia,
no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005;
Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02,
§ 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia,
no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v.
Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR
2002 III).
-
Having regard to its case-law on the subject and taking note of the
Government's acknowledgment of a violation, the Court finds that by
failing for years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the
applicant's favour the domestic authorities prevented him from
receiving the money he 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. 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 173,151 representing the difference
between average market prices per square metre of housing in 2002 and
2006. He submitted a certificate of the Ministry of Regional
Development showing that the average market price per square metre in
Kostroma in 2006 was RUR 11,960. He also claimed RUR 180,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the award should not exceed the amount
awarded by the Court in the Mikryukov case (see Mikryukov
v. Russia, no. 7363/04, 8 December 2005).
- The
Court notes that the State's outstanding obligation to enforce the
judgment at issue is undisputed. The Court reiterates 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 in which he would have been had the requirements of Article
6 not been disregarded (see Poznakhirina v.
Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005, with
further references). The Court finds that in the present case
this principle applies as well, having regard to the violation found.
It therefore considers that the Government should secure, by
appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the domestic
courts.
- In the present case the Court 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 him.
The adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be
paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its
value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see, mutadis
mutandis, Gizzatova, cited above, § 28;
Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 36, 27 May
2004). The Court notes that on 22 September 2002 the domestic courts
awarded the applicant a sum of money for housing construction. The
sum was calculated by multiplying the number of square metres to
which the applicant was entitled by the average market price per
square metre in Kostroma in 2002. To date, the applicant has not
received this sum. By 2006 the average market price per square metre
had increased, making the housing grant concerned insufficient to buy
a flat of the surface area indicated in the judgment. The Court
accepts that the judgment debt depreciated as a result of the
continued non-enforcement of the judgment. Having regard to the
materials in its possession and noting that the applicant's
calculation contained an arithmetical mistake, the Court awards the
applicant RUR 172,872, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
that amount, and dismisses the remainder of the claim for pecuniary
damage.
- The Court further considers that the applicant must
have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State
authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. The Court
takes into account the relevant aspects, such as the length of the
enforcement proceedings and the nature of the award, and making its
assessment on an equitable basis, awards the applicant 3,500 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed RUR 85,000 for reimbursement of his legal and
translation fees.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's claim was not supported by
relevant documents.
- The
Court notes that the applicant did not submit any receipts or other
vouchers confirming that the expenses had been actually incurred.
Accordingly, the Court does not make any award 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, within three months from the date on which
the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, is to secure the enforcement of the award made by the
domestic courts in the applicant's favour under the judgment of
22 September 2002, that is to pay the applicant RUR 178,752 (one
hundred and seventy-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty-two
Russian roubles);
(b) 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 172,872 (one hundred and seventy-two thousand eight hundred and
seventy-two Russian roubles) in respect of the pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(iii)
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 applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
