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 TRUFANOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 11756/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 December
2008
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 Trufanova v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 11756/06) 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 Irina Anatolyevna
Trufanova (“the applicant”), on 2 March 2006.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
2 May 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine
the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Voronezh, a town in the
Voronezh Region.
- On
30 October 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh
awarded the applicant against a local welfare authority 2,289.68
Russian roubles (RUB) in child benefit arrears. This judgment became
binding on 10 November 2000 but was not enforced immediately.
- On
7 October 2003 the District Court awarded the applicant against the
regional authority RUB 8,774.01 in child benefit arrears. This
judgment became binding on 23 October 2003 but was not enforced
immediately.
- On
19 June 2007 the two judgments were enforced.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments.
Insofar as relevant, these Articles 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 argued that the application was inadmissible, because it
had been lodged more than six months after the dates of the
judgments.
- The
applicant maintained her application.
- The
Court considers that the six-month rule does not apply to the present
case because on the date of its introduction the judgments were
outstanding (see Nazarchuk v. Ukraine, no. 9670/02, §
20, 19 April 2005).
- 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 admitted that the delay of the enforcement had breached
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- In
the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds no reason to
hold otherwise. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6
§ 1 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 an unspecified amount in respect of pecuniary
damage, asking the Court to apply an interest rate of 12% to the
belatedly paid awards.
- The
Government argued that this claim should be rejected, because the
applicant had failed to specify the amount, and because her choice of
the interest rate had been arbitrary.
- The
Court considers that even though the applicant has not specified the
amount, in substance she has claimed compensation of inflationary
loss. Making its estimate on the information at its disposal, the
Court awards 150 euros (EUR) under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that this claim was excessive, and that a mere
finding of a violation would be sufficient.
- The
Court accepts that the applicant must have been distressed by the
delayed enforcement of the judgments. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 3,900 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 45 for the costs and expenses, including
postage and lost working hours.
- The
Government argued that this claim was unsupported by evidence.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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 3 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 § 1 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 according to Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 150 (one hundred and fifty
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 3 three euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and
expenses;
(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 4 December 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
