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 TRUNOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 9769/04)
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 Trunov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoli
Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni, judges
and
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. 9769/04) 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 Igor Leonidovich Trunov
(“the applicant”), on 5 January 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mrs V. Milinchuk, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant complained about prolonged non-enforcement of a judgment in
his favour.
- On
21 February 2007 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
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow.
- On
22 September 1997 the applicant was convicted on several counts of
fraud and sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment and a
fine. On 28 October 1998 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
quashed the conviction, finding that the applicant's guilt had not
been proved.
- The
applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for damages incurred through
the unlawful criminal prosecution.
- On
4 April 2001 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow granted his
claim in part and awarded him 23,400 Russian roubles, payable by the
Ministry of Finance within one month. On 13 June 2001 the Moscow City
Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
- On
11 October 2001 a writ of execution was issued.
- On
11 March 2003 the applicant sent a complaint to the Ministry of
Finance about non-enforcement of the judgment. No reply was received.
- On
18 March 2006 the Ministry of Finance paid the judgment debt to the
applicant.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment of 4 April
2001, as upheld on appeal on 13 June 2001. He relied on Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant parts
of which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time ... 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...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government raised two objections as to the admissibility of the
present case. They claimed firstly that the applicant had not
exhausted the domestic remedies because he had not complained to a
court about the actions of the Ministry of Finance which was, in
their view, “a manifestly effective remedy”. Secondly,
they pointed out that the application had been lodged on 5 January
2004, that is more than six months after the applicant had for the
last time attempted to obtain enforcement of the judgment by sending
a complaint to the Ministry of Finance on 11 March 2003.
- The Court reiterates that it is
incumbent on the Government claiming non exhaustion to satisfy
the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory
and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was
accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect
of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of
success (see Selmouni v. France
[GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud
v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, §
15, ECHR 2002 VIII). In the present case the Government omitted
to comment on the efficiency of the remedy they suggested. They did
not explain how the lodging of a complaint against the Ministry of
Finance could have put an end to the continued non-enforcement
of the judgment or what kind of redress the applicant could have been
provided with as a result of the action. Even if the applicant had
obtained a judicial decision confirming that the non-enforcement was
unlawful in domestic terms, the outcome of such a claim would only
have produced repetitive results, namely a writ of execution
requiring the Ministry of Finance to proceed with the enforcement of
the original judgment (compare, among many others, Yavorivskaya v.
Russia (dec.), no. 34687/02, 13 May 2004). The Court dismisses
the Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies.
- As
regards the compliance with the six-month rule, the Court reiterates
that non-enforcement of a judgment is a continuing situation which
excludes the application of this rule (see, for example, Nazarchuk
v. Ukraine, no. 9670/02, § 20, 19 April
2005). Accordingly, this objection by the Government must also be
dismissed.
- 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 that a long delay in enforcement amounted to
a breach of the applicant's rights under Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
applicant maintained his complaints.
- The
Court observes that on 4 April 2001 the applicant obtained a judgment
in his favour which became enforceable on 13 June 2001. However, it
was only enforced on 18 March 2006, that is four years and nine
months later.
- 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 Reynbakh v.
Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September
2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02,
§ 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v.
Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005;
Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq.,
18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §
34 et seq., ECHR 2002 III).
-
Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by
failing to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's
favour the domestic authorities violated his right to a court and
prevented him from receiving the money he 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.”
- The
applicant did not submit an itemised claim for just satisfaction as
required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court
considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
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;
- Decides not to make an award under Article 41 of
the Convention.
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
