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 DENISOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 21823/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 January 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 Denisov 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 F.
Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 January 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application (no. 21823/03)
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 a Russian national, Mr
Aleksandr Ivanovich Denisov, (“the applicant”), on 9 June
2003.
- The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On 5 October 2005 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
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the Tyumen
Region.
- In 1999 he brought a court action against the Ministry
of Finance of the Russian Federation. He sought to recover the
monetary value of the state-issued promissory notes for the purchase
of a Russian-made car.
- By judgment of 6 March 2001 the Armizonskiy District
Court of the Tyumen Region awarded the applicant 38,368.92 Russian
roubles (RUR) and recovered in his favour RUR 673 in compensation for
court fee. The District Court specified that those amounts had to be
paid by the Ministry of Finance at the expenses of the Treasury of
the Russian Federation. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the
Tyumen Regional Court on 23 July 2001.
- On an unspecified date the President of the Tyumen
Regional Court granted the Ministry of Finance's request to file a
motion for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Tyumen
Regional Court.
- On 22 February 2002 the Presidium of the Tyumen
Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, upheld the judgment of
6 March 2001.
- The judgment of 6 March 2001, as upheld on 23 July
2001, remains unenforced to date.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of
the judgment of 6 March 2001. The Court will examine this complaint
under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention. 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 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 did not give any justification for the
non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 March 2001.
- The applicant maintained his claims.
- The Court observes that on 6 March 2001 the applicant
obtained an enforceable judgment by which the Ministry of Finance was
to pay him a substantial amount of money. The judgment was upheld on
appeal on 23 July 2001 and 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, Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III, Reynbakh v.
Russia, no. 23405/03, 29 September 2005).
- Having examined the materials submitted to it, the
Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of justifying the delay in enforcement of the
judgment. It finds, and that is not disputed by the Government, that
by failing for years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the
applicant's favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of
his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the money he
had legitimately 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 that the Government should compensate loss incurred
as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour, but
he did not specify his claim. He also claimed 8,900 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered that no compensation should be awarded in
respect of pecuniary damage, as the applicant had failed to specify
it. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that
the applicant's claim was excessive and unreasonable.
- The Court notes that the State's outstanding
obligation to enforce the judgment in the
applicant's favour is not in dispute. Accordingly, the applicant is
still entitled to recover the judgment debt in the domestic
proceedings. 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 he would have
been had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see
Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 26 October
1984, Series A no. 85, § 12, and, mutatis
mutandis, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99,
§ 27, 23 October 2003). The Court finds that in the present
case this principle applies as well, having regard to the violations
found (see Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33,
24 February 2005). It therefore considers that the Government
shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made
by the domestic courts in the applicant's favour.
- The Court notes that the applicant has failed to
substantiate his claim for pecuniary damage. It therefore rejects
this claim. On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant
must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State
authorities' failure to enforce a judgment in his favour. However,
the particular amount claimed appears excessive. The Court takes into
account the amount and nature of the award in the instant case, a
long period of the authorities' inactivity, and the fact that the
judgment has not been enforced. 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 requested the Court to reimburse costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and postal expenses.
He submitted receipts which amounted to 600 Russian roubles (RUR).
- The Government did not comment.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his 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 20 covering costs under all heads,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above 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, within three months from
the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, shall secure,
by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the
domestic court, and in addition pay the applicant EUR 3,000 (three
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 20 (twenty
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;
(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 unanimously the remainder of the
applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
