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 ZVEREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 13296/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19
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 Zverev 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,
Mr K.
Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr G. Malinverni, judges,
and
Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 13296/03) 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 three Russian nationals, Mr Ivan Petrovich
Zverev, Mrs Valentina Alekseyevna Zvereva and Mrs Nataliya Ivanovna
Zvereva (“the applicants”), on 19 March 2003.
By letter of 28 November 2006 the third applicant informed the Court
about the change of her name due to marriage. Accordingly, the third
applicant's name has changed to Mrs Nataliya Ivanovna Moreno Toledo.
The applicants were represented before the Court by Ms S.A.
Poznakhirina, a lawyer practising in Novovoronezh.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially
represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by
their Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
- On
2 October 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
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicants were born in 1951, 1952 and 1974
respectively and live in the town of Novovoronezh, the Voronezh
Region.
- It
appears that in 1998 and 1999 there were delays in payment of the
applicants' pension and in 2000 they brought a court claim against
the authority in this connection.
- By
judgment of 4 August 2000 the Novovoronezhskiy District Court of
Voronezh granted the claim and ordered the authority to pay the first
applicant 1,687.78 Russian roubles (RUR – approximately 55
euros (EUR)), the second applicant RUR 2,053.57 (approximately EUR
75) and the third applicant RUR 1,262.96 (approximately EUR 40) in
damages.
- On
14 August 2000 the judgment came into force and the District Court
issued writs of execution and forwarded them to the bailiffs.
- According
to the information submitted by the Government, the court decision
was enforced in full on 2 December 2005, which is five years, three
months and nineteen days after its entry into force.
II. Relevant domestic
law
- According
to Articles 13, 209 and 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Гражданский
процессуальный
кодекс
РСФСР),
in force at the material time, a court judgment, which has become
final, is binding and must be executed.
- Section
9 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997 (Закон
об исполнительном
производстве)
provides that a bailiff's order on the institution of enforcement
proceedings shall fix a time-limit for the defendant's voluntary
compliance with the writ of execution. The time-limit cannot exceed
five days. The bailiff shall also warn the defendant that coercive
action will follow, should the defendant fail to comply within the
time-limit.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of
court judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in so far as
relevant, provide 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 accepted that there had been a delay in the enforcement of
court awards in favour of the applicants and acknowledged that there
had been a breach of the mentioned Convention provisions.
- The
applicants' counsel maintained their complaints.
- 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
Court first notes that the judgment in the applicants' favour dated 4
August 2000 remained without enforcement until 2 December 2005, i.e.
for the period of more than five years and three months.
- The Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in many cases
raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among
other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR
2002-III; and, more recently, Petrushko v. Russia,
no. 36494/02, 24 February 2005, or Poznakhirina v. Russia,
no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).
- Having
noted the Government's acknowledgement that there had been a
violation of the said Convention provisions and in view of its
case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing for such
substantial periods to comply with the enforceable judgments in the
applicants' favour the domestic authorities prevented them from
receiving the money which they were entitled to receive under final
and binding judgments.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 of the
Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of all three
applicants.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Damage
- 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.”
- The
applicants each claimed EUR 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. They also requested the Court to award them the
respective sums of 1,878.58 Russian roubles (RUR – EUR 55),
RUR 2,290.68 (EUR 67) and RUR 1,262.96 (EUR 41) as regards the
pecuniary losses.
- The
Government considered that the claims in respect of pecuniary damage
had been reasonable. As regards the applicants' claims for
compensation of non-pecuniary damage, the Government found them
unsubstantiated and excessive.
- The
Court accepts that the applicants suffered inflationary losses as a
result of the delayed execution of the judgments in their favour and
awards them the respective sums of EUR 55, EUR 67 and EUR 41. It also
finds that the applicants suffered some distress as a result of the
violations at issue which related to the main source of their income
and therefore awards each applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicants did not seek reimbursement of their
costs and expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the
Court. 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 to the
Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay, 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) to
the first applicant EUR 55 (fifty-five euros) in respect of pecuniary
damage and EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these
amounts,
(ii) to
the second applicant EUR 67 (sixty-seven euros) in respect of
pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these
amounts,
(iii) to
the third applicant EUR 41 (forty-one euros) in respect of pecuniary
damage and EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these
amounts,
(b) that
the amounts awarded in euros shall be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
