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 DVORYAKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 28644/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 April
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 Dvoryakov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Giorgio
Malinverni, judges,
and
André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 April 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 28644/06) 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, Mr Viktor Mikhaylovich
Dvoryakov (“the applicant”), on 20 April 2006.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially
represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by
their Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
- On
12 October 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
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Novocherkassk in
the Rostov Region.
- The
applicant brought proceedings against the Military Commissariat of
the Rostov Region claiming an increased commodity allowance. By
judgment of 30 August 2004, the Novocherkassk Town Court awarded the
applicant 54,838.54 Russian roubles against the Commissariat. The
court also ordered the respondent to recalculate the applicant's
allowance taking account of his entitlement to the allowance. The
parties did not appeal and the judgment became final.
- On
19 January 2006 the Commissariat sought an extension of the
time-limit for lodging an application for a supervisory review of the
above judgment. On 20 March 2006 the Town Court granted the request.
On 3 July the Regional Court refused leave for supervisory
review.
- On
6 December 2006 the applicant received the money due to him.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6, 13 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 30 August 2004
had not been enforced in good time. The Court considers that this
complaint is to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 26,
ECHR 2002 III). The relevant parts of these provisions
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 Court notes that this complaint 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 delay in enforcement was due to the
pending appeal and supervisory-review proceedings and due to the
debtor's failure to take any measures for its enforcement. The
Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant's rights.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the
judgment of 30 August 2004 was enforced in full
on 6 December 2006. It follows that the judgment remained
without enforcement for nearly two years and
three months.
- 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, § 35,
ECHR 2002 III.; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02,
§ 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; and Gerasimova
v. Russia, no. 24669/02, § 17
et seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by
failing, for a long period of time, 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 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about
the extension of the time-limit for lodging a supervisory-review
request and, in general terms, about the authorities' failure to
protect his rights.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that
the above complaints did not disclose any appearance of a violation
of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its
Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. 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 complaint concerning the delay in
enforcement of the judgment of 30 August 2004 admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 April 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
