[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF MATVIYETS v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 38999/05)
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 Matviyets v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
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. 38999/05) 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 Petr Pavlovich Matviyets
(“the applicant”), on 20 October 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mrs V. Milinchuk, the Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
9 March 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application 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
applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Voronezh.
- The
applicant is a veteran of World War II. Under domestic law the State
must subsidise his car's running costs. Not having received the
subsidy in 1996–99, the applicant applied to a court.
- On
29 May 2001 the Tsentralnyi District Court of Voronezh awarded the
applicant 3,666.67 Russian roubles against a regional authority. On 8
June 2001 the judgment became binding, and on 8 May 2007 it was
enforced.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a judgment must be enforced within two months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1, 13, AND 17 OF
THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the judgment
breached Articles 6, 13, and 17 of the Convention. The Court will
examine this complaint only under Article 6 § 1, which insofar
as relevant reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ...
by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
- The Government argued that the applicant had not
exhausted domestic remedies, because he had failed to claim the
subsidy in 1997–99. The Court considers that this argument is
of no consequence, because the applicant's right to receive the
subsidy for this period was recognised in the domestic judgment.
- 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
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant's rights.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
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 claimed 15,000 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, and
expressed a predisposition to receiving compensation of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government asked the Court to reject this claim because it was too
high, imprecise, and unsubstantiated.
- With
regard to pecuniary damage, the Court finds that the applicant
has not properly substantiated the damage, and therefore rejects this
claim. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Court finds that
the finding of a violation would be adequate just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention;
- Holds that the finding of a violation
constitutes adequate just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
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
