[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KRASYUCHENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 11712/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11
October 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 Krasyuchenko 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 A. Wampach, Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20
September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 11712/06) 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 Yevgeniya Grigoryevna
Krasyuchenko (“the applicant”), on 10 February 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Sivoldayev, a lawyer
practising in Voronezh. 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 new Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
- On
4 April 2006 the President of the Chamber decided that the
application should be given priority treatment under Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court. On 10 April 2006 the President decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article
29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits
of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Voronezh.
- The
applicant sued the local social welfare authority (Комитет
по социальной
защите
населения
администрации
Советского
района
г. Воронежа)
claiming readjustment of her old-age pension. On 23 February
2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh granted her claim
and awarded her 2,562.44 Russian roubles. No appeal was brought
against the judgment, and it became final and enforceable ten days
later.
- On
5 March 2001 the bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings.
- On
26 July 2001 the bailiff terminated the proceedings because the
defendant had not had sufficient funds to pay the judgment debt.
- On
2 December 2005 the monies due to the
applicant were transferred into her bank account.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 23 February
2001 had not been enforced in good time. The relevant parts of these
provisions 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. 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.
B. Merits
- The
Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant's rights.
- The
applicant maintained her complaints.
- The
Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the
judgment of 23 February 2001 was enforced in full
on 2 December 2005. It follows that the judgment remained
without enforcement for approximately four
years and nine months.
- 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
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35,
ECHR 2002 III.; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02,
§ 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; and Gerasimova
v. Russia, no. 24669/02, § 17
et seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject and 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 impaired the essence of her right to
a court and prevented her from receiving the money she 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 4,992.58 in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing inflation losses during the period of non-enforcement
plus the interest at the marginal lending rate of the Russian Central
Bank. She also claimed 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government submitted that no compensation for pecuniary damage should
be awarded to the applicant because she should have applied with that
claim to the domestic courts.
- The
Court reiterates 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 De
Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article
50), judgment of 10 March 1972, Series A no. 14, pp. 8-9,
§ 16; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02,
§ 36, 27 May 2004).
- The Court considers that the applicant suffered a
pecuniary loss which would have been avoided had the authorities
enforced the judgment of 23 February 2001 in good time. The Court
also reiterates that 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 Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03,
§ 28, 13 January 2005). Having regard to the materials in
its possession and to the fact that the Government did not object to
the applicant's method of calculation of the pecuniary damage, the
Court accepts the applicant's claim and awards her under this head
EUR 140, 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 in good time the judgment in her favour. Taking
into account the length of the enforcement proceedings and the nature
of the award, and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 40 for the expenses incurred before the
Court.
- The
Government considered that the applicant's claims were
unsubstantiated.
- 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 EUR 40 for costs and expenses relating to the
proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
that amount.
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
sums, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at
the date of the settlement:
(i) EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
140 (one hundred forty euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR
40 (forty euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iv) plus
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 11 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy
Registrar President
