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. 34433/04)
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 Denisov 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 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. 34433/04) 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 Yuriy Dmitriyevich
Denisov, (“the applicant”), on 16 July 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mrs S. Poznakhirina, an NGO expert
working in Novovoronezh.
- 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
31 May 2006 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 1939 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in
the Voronezh Region.
- He
sued the Welfare Office of Novovoronezh and the local department of
the Federal Treasury for unpaid social benefits and obtained seven
judgments in his favour.
A. Judgment of 25 October 2000
- On
25 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region
(“the Town Court”) awarded the applicant 1,064.55 Russian
roubles (RUB) in arrears relating to a disability allowance and RUB
815.16 in arrears relating to a food allowance. The judgment entered
into force on 5 November 2000. On 30 September 2003 the
applicant received RUB 1,064.55. It appears that the remaining
part of the judgment debt has not been paid to the applicant.
B. Judgment of 19 December 2002 and its indexation
- On
19 December 2002 the Town Court held that as of 1 January 2001 the
applicant had been entitled to a monthly disability allowance in the
amount of RUB 3,449.31 and recovered in his favour arrears in the
amount of RUB 14,337.48. On 6 February 2003 the Voronezh Regional
Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment. It was
fully enforced on 17 December 2004.
- On
31 May 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,565.57 in
penalties for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 19
December 2002. The judgment entered into force on 14 June 2005. It
has not been enforced to date.
C. Judgment of 9 June 2003 and its indexation
- On
9 June 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 26,649.69
in arrears relating to a disability allowance. On 10 July 2003 the
Regional Court upheld the judgment. It was enforced in full on
17 December 2004.
- On
31 May 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,421.33 in
penalties for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 9 June
2003. The judgment acquired legal force on 14 June 2005. It has not
been enforced to date.
D. Judgments of 16 February and 6 May 2004 and their
indexation
- On
16 February 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 23,131.68
in arrears relating to a disability allowance. On 22 April 2004 the
Regional Court upheld the judgment. It was enforced in full on
24 August 2005.
- On
6 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 13,099.83 in
arrears relating to a disability allowance. The court furthermore
held that as of 1 April 2004 the applicant had been entitled to a
monthly disability allowance in the amount of RUB 7,815.92, to be
index linked in accordance with legislation. On 17 May 2004 the
judgment entered into force. It was enforced in full on 11 November
2005.
- On
27 February 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 8,385.82
in penalties for the delayed enforcement of the judgments of 16
February and 6 May 2004. The judgment acquired legal force on
10 March 2006. It has not been enforced to date.
E. Judgment of 15 March 2004
- On
15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57
in arrears relating to a food allowance and to an annual disability
allowance. The judgment acquired legal force on 25 March 2004. It has
not been enforced to date.
F. Judgment of 26 August 2004
- On
26 August 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,772.30
in arrears relating to a food allowance and to a disability
allowance. The court furthermore held that as of 1 April 2004 the
applicant had been entitled to a monthly food allowance in the amount
of RUB 679.78 and as of 2005 he was entitled to an annual
disability allowance in the amount of RUB 1,132.97, both to be
index-linked in accordance with legislation. The judgment acquired
legal force on 6 September 2004. It has not been enforced to
date.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained about the lengthy non enforcement of the
judgments of 25 October 2000, 19 December 2002, 9 June 2003 and of
the judgments of 16 February, 15 March, 6 May and 26 August 2004. He
referred to Article 6 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 observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the
applicant was awarded compensation for the delays in enforcement of
the judgments of 19 December 2002, 9 June 2003, 16 February and 6 May
2004 (see paragraphs 9, 11 and 14 above). The Court does not exclude
that such compensatory awards could constitute redress for the
State's previous failure to comply with the judgments within a
reasonable time, provided that those awards have been paid in full
without any delay. However, the Government did not adduce any
evidence showing that those awards had been paid to the applicant in
full and in good time. Accordingly, the Court considers that the
applicant may still claim to be a “victim” in respect of
his complaint about the delays in enforcement of the judgments of
19 December 2002, 9 June 2003, 16 February and 6 May 2004.
- The
Court concludes 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 submitted that the judgments of 19 December 2002, 9 June
2003, 16 February and 6 May 2004 had been enforced in full. They
further submitted that the judgment of 25 October 2000 had been
enforced in part and the judgments of 15 March and 26 August 2004 had
not been enforced. They acknowledged that the lengthy non-enforcement
of the judgments in the applicant's favour violated his rights
guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention.
- The
applicant did not dispute that the judgments of 19 December 2002, 9
June 2003, 16 February and 6 May 2004 had been enforced in full.
However, he considered that the authorities had failed to take due
measures to enforce the judgments in good time. He submitted that the
judgment of 25 October 2000 and the judgments of 15 March and 26
August 2004 had not been enforced in full.
- The
Court observes that between 2000 and 2004 the applicant obtained
seven judgments by which the Welfare Office of Novovoronezh, a state
body, was to pay him arrears relating to social benefits. Four of
those judgments were enforced in full with substantial delays varying
from sixteen months to twenty two months; three judgments had not
been enforced in full 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, and Baygayev v. Russia, no.
36398/04, 5 July 2007).
- 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 lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the
applicant's favour. It finds that by failing, for long periods of
time, to comply with the enforceable judgments 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 14,760 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing the outstanding debt due to him under the judgments
which had not been enforced together with the compensatory awards. He
claimed EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant was still entitled to recover
the court awards in the domestic proceedings. They considered that
having regard to the nature of the awards in the present case, the
amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be determined
in accordance with the Court's practice in similar cases.
- 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 judgments of 25 October 2000 and of the judgments
of 15 March and 26 August 2004. As regards the judgments which have
been enforced with substantial delays, the Court considers that the
enforcement of the compensatory awards would constitute the
appropriate redress for the violations found. It therefore considers
that the Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the
enforcement of two judgments of 31 May 2005 and of the judgment of 27
February 2006.
- The
Court finally considers that the applicant must have suffered certain
distress and frustration resulting from the authorities' failure to
enforce the final judgments in his favour in good time. However, the
amount claimed appears to be excessive. Taking into account the
length of the enforcement proceedings, the number of the awards and
their nature and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court awards the applicant EUR 3,900 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and before the Court. Accordingly, the
Court makes no award 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 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 judgments of 25 October 2000, 15 March and 26 August 2004, of
two judgments of 31 May 2005 and of the judgment of 27 February 2006
and in addition pay the applicant EUR 3,900
(three thousand nine hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, 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 amount 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 6 March 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
