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 SITNITSKIYE v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 17701/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 June
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 Sitnitskiye 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,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 May 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 17701/03) 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 three Russian nationals, Mr Viktor
Bronislavovich Sitnitskiy, Ms Yuliya Viktorovna Sitnitskaya, and Mr
Vitaliy Viktorovich Sitnitskiy (“the applicants”), on 26
April 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
30 May 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning
non-enforcement of a domestic judgment to the Government. It
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
applicants were born in 1953, 1985, and 1982 respectively and live in
Krasnodar.
- In
1999 the applicants lost their home in Volgodonsk in a terrorist bomb
attack.
- On
1 November 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar ordered the
local authority to provide the applicants with a at. On 19
December 2002 this judgment became binding.
- On
the applicants’ request, on 19 February 2003 the court modified
the operative part of the judgment and specified that the at
should measure at least 72 m².
- The
local authority applied for a supervisory review of the judgment, and
the enforcement of the judgment was twice stayed: from 1 April to 4
August 2003 and from 23 October to 13 April 2004.
- On
19 May 2004 the applicants submitted the writ of enforcement to the
bailiff’s service, and on 10 September 2004 the applicants
received a at of 82.28 m².
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. Under
section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of
Finance must enforce a judgment within three months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the
Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy
non-enforcement of the judgment. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. As far 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 this complaint was manifestly ill-founded.
Only three months had passed from the day when the applicants had
submitted the writ of enforcement to the bailiff’s service to
the day when they received the at. Besides, the at
they received was bigger than awarded, and this excess had
compensated them for any possible delays.
- The
applicants maintained their complaint and emphasized the State’s
responsibility to compensate victims of terrorism.
- With
regard to the argument that the applicants have received a at
bigger than awarded, the Court reiterates that to deprive an
applicant of the status as a victim, the State must acknowledge a
violation of the Convention and provide redress for it (see
Amuur v. France,
judgment of 25 June 1995, Reports of
Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, §
36; and Dalban v. Romania,
judgment of 28 September 1999, Reports
1999-VI, § 44). In the case at
hand, however, the local authority has not tied the excessive size of
the property to the delays in the enforcement. It follows that
this complaint cannot be found incompatible ratione personae
with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3.
- 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
Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement
of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR
2002 III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will
look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the
applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the
award was (Raylyan v. Russia,
no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
17. In
the case at hand the delay in the enforcement was one year and six
months: from the day the district court modified the operative part
of its judgment to the moment the applicants received the at.
This period is prima facie incompatible with the requirements
of the Convention, especially since the award was meant to
accommodate the homeless victims of terrorism. An intervention of the
supervisory-review authorities does not justify the delay (see
Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, § 42, 23
October 2003).
- It
follows that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants also complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention
that the State failed to compensate their losses caused by the
bombing and to recover compensation from the convicted terrorists.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds
that they do 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 is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and
4 of the Convention.
- 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
applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the
non-enforcement of the domestic judgment admissible and the remainder
of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
