[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ABDEYEVY v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 38405/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 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 Abdeyevy v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoli
Kovler,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and Mr Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 February 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 38405/02) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Marat Minnullovich
Abdeyev and Ms Rozaliya Khabibovna Abdeyeva (“the applicants”),
on 20 September 2002.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at
the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
28 April 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 applications at
the same time as their admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1944 and 1946 respectively and live in Ufa,
the Republic of Bashkortostan.
- The
applicants are entitled to a supplementary allowance to their
pensions as former municipal officials. In 2001-2002 the allowance
was not paid to them. The applicants brought several sets of
proceedings against the local social security office to recover the
underpayments. The Penzhinskiy District Court of the Koryakskiy
Autonomous Region granted the applicants' claims.
- Thus,
on 14 January 2002 the first applicant was awarded 26,754 Russian
roubles (RUB); on 4 February 2002, RUB 20,037.72; on 5 September
2002, RUB 19,317.35; on 26 November 2002, RUB 18,655.80; and on
7 April 2003, RUB 18,037.16. The judgments were not appealed against
and became final ten days after the delivery.
- On
14 January 2002 the second applicant was awarded RUB 39,516.77;
on 4 February 2002, RUB 29,449.32; on 5 September 2002, RUB
25,852.39; on 12 September 2002, RUB 11,694.56; and on 7 April
2003, RUB 26,259.90. The judgments were not appealed against and
became final ten days after the delivery.
- In
January 2003 all the judgments, except for the judgments of 7 April
2003, were enforced. According to the applicants, the judgments of 7
April 2003 were enforced in July 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the
judgments in their favour. The Court will examine this complaint
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles 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. Parties' submissions
- The
Government admitted that there were some delays in the enforcement
proceedings. However, they argued that the delays in enforcement of
the judgments that entered into force in 2002 amounted to less than a
year and, therefore, were reasonable. The Government also referred to
the difficulties of the budgetary process in the Extreme North,
including the Koryakskiy Autonomous Region. They claimed that due to
the budgetary process formalities, the money awarded in 2002 could
have been paid only from the money allocated to the budget in 2003.
On those grounds the Government concluded that the applicants' rights
under the Convention had not been violated.
- The
applicants maintained their complaints.
B. Admissibility
- The
Court observes that the exact dates of execution of the judgments in
the applicants' favour are not clear from the parties' submissions.
However, it was undisputed that all the judgments (except for the
ones delivered on 7 April 2003) were enforced in January 2003. As
regards the judgments of 7 April 2003, according to the applicants,
they were enforced in July 2005. The Government did not contest this
allegation. The Court therefore accepts it.
- The
Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the
complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about delays in the enforcement
of the court judgments in the applicants' favour raise serious issues
of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which
requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore
that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for
declaring them inadmissible has been established.
C. Merits
- The
Court must determine whether the delays in enforcement of the
judgments in the applicants' favour have been compatible with their
right to a court and to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
In doing so, the Court will look at the delays in enforcement of two
groups of judgments separately. The first group includes the
judgments of 5 September, 12 September and 26 November 2002; the
second group includes the remaining judgments – of 14 January,
4 February 2002 and 7 April 2003.
1. First group of judgments
- As
to the first group of judgments the Court observes that they became
enforceable on 14 September, 21 September and 5 December 2002
respectively. The applicants received the awards pursuant to these
judgments in January 2003. Thus, the delays in the enforcement were
less than five months.
- In
these circumstances, given the nature of the awards and the length of
the delays in the enforcement of the judgments, the Court accepts the
Government's argument that the judgments were enforced within a
reasonable time. The Court considers that the delays were not so long
as to deprive the outcome of the judicial process of “all
useful effect” or to interfere with the applicants' right to
the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. There has accordingly
been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the delays in enforcement of the
judgments of 5 September, 12 September and 26 November 2002.
2. Second group of judgments
- As
regard the second group of judgments the Court notes that the amounts
awarded by the judgments of 14 January and 4 February 2002, which
became enforceable on 24 January and 14 February respectively, were
paid to the applicants in January 2003. The judgment of 7 April 2003,
which became enforceable on 17 April 2003, was executed in July 2005.
Hence, the delays in the enforcement of the above judgments
constituted twelve months, eleven months and two years and four
months respectively.
- 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, among other
authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III,
and, more recently, Petrushko, cited above, or Poznakhirina
v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005). The Court notes that
the Government referred to the difficulties of budgeting process in
the Koryakskiy Autonomous Region as justification for the delays in
the enforcement proceedings. However, the Court recalls that it is
incumbent on the State to organise its legal system in such a way
that ensures co-ordination between various enforcement agencies and
secures honouring of the State's judgment debts in good time (see
Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23, 29 September
2005).
- Considering the length of the periods of
non-enforcement of court judgments, and having examined all relevant
circumstances, the Court does not see any reason to depart
from its previous case-law and concludes that the delayed
execution of the judgments 14 January, 4 February 2002 and 7 April
2003 in favour of the applicants constituted a breach of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants also complained that the lengthy non-enforcement of the
judgments in their favour violated their rights to effective domestic
remedies under Article 13 of the Convention.
- The
Court considers that this complaint is linked to the above issues of
non-enforcement to such an extent that it should be declared
admissible as well. However, having regard to the finding relating to
Article 6 § 1 (see paragraphs 20 and 22 above), the Court
considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case,
there has been a violation of Article 13 (see, among other
authorities, Korchagina and Others v. Russia, no. 27295/03,
§§ 26-27, 17 November 2005).
III. 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
1. Pecuniary damage
- The
applicants made two claims in respect of pecuniary damage. Firstly,
they explained that due to the non-payment of the allowance they had
to raise a loan from a bank to be able to pay for the apartment they
had bought. As a result, they sustained damage in the amount of
28,764 Russian roubles, which represented the interest payments they
had made and would have to make to the bank in 2002-2006. In support
of their claims the applicants presented the loan agreement.
- Secondly,
the applicants claimed pecuniary losses caused by the delayed
payments as a result of the inflation. They did not submit a
calculation of the damage sustained.
- The
Government considered that the amount claimed by the applicants was
unsubstantiated. They further contended that there was no causal link
between the alleged violation of the applicants' rights and the
damages they claimed.
- As
to the claim to compensate the interest payments to the bank the
Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
- As
regards the claim to compensate the inflation losses, the Court
observes that the applicant failed to present calculations of the
damage sustained. The Court therefore finds that this claim was not
substantiated and rejects it.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
- The
applicants claimed 100,000 United States dollars in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
-
The Government disputed the claim as unreasonable. They suggested
that if the Court found a violation of the applicants' rights, such
finding would by itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
- The
Court accepts that the applicants suffered distress because of the
State authorities' failure to enforce the judgments. However, the
amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage appears excessive.
The Court takes into account the nature and the amount of the awards,
the delays before the enforcement and other relevant aspects. Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards 1,600 euros to each
applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may
be chargeable on these amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claims for the costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the
Court.
- Accordingly,
the Court does not award anything 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 no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 of the Convention in respect of the enforcement of the
judgments of 5 September, 12 September and 26 November
2002;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of
the Convention on account of the delayed enforcement of the judgments
of 14 January, 4 February 2002 and 7 April 2003;
- Holds that there is no need to examine the
complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,600 (one thousand six
hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into the Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the date of the
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 the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
