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 PARFENENKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 12115/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 January 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 Parfenenkov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Loukis
Loucaides,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoli
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 12115/03) 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 a Russian national, Mr Vladimir Dmitriyevich
Parfenenkov (“the applicant”), on 15 March 2003.
- 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 new Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
- On
10 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 1948 and lives in Smolensk.
- On
2 July 1996 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour by which
a private company was obliged to reimburse the applicant's share in
the company's capital stock. On 4 November 1996 the applicant also
obtained a court order, which obliged the above company to pay him
salary arrears.
- On
an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against
the Ministry of Justice challenging the efficiency of the State
Bailiff's Service in the enforcement proceedings and claiming
damages.
- By a judgment of 27 August 2001 the Promyshlenniy
District Court of Smolensk acknowledged that the lack of activity of
behalf of the bailiffs made the enforcement of the judgment of 2 July
1996 and the court order of 4 November 1996 impossible and obliged
the Ministry of Justice to pay the applicant 27,403.47 Russian
roubles (RUB) in damages and interest at the annual rate of 25%. On
12 March 2002 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 27
August 2001 on appeal.
- On
9 April 2002 the warrant of execution was issued to the applicant,
which he submitted to the State Bailiffs' Service on 6 May 2002.
However, on 14 May 2002 the Bailiffs' Service returned the warrant of
execution to the applicant and informed him that he should submit it
to the Federal Treasury.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant submitted the warrant of execution
to the Federal Treasury. However, on 14 June 2002 the Federal
Treasury returned the warrant of execution to the applicant for the
following reasons: the judgment of 27 August 2001 did not indicate
which of the debtor's accounts the sum adjudicated by the court
should be debited to, the copy of the judgment was not duly certified
and the warrant of execution contained no indication as to the
deadline for its submission.
- On
24 June 2002 the applicant again attempted to submit the warrant of
execution to the Federal Treasury. However, on 7 October 2002 the
Federal Treasury once again returned the warrant of execution to the
applicant, because it contained certain corrections, whereas it
should have been filled out accurately.
- The
judgment of 27 August 2001 has remained unenforced to date.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
complained that the judgment of 27 August 2001, as upheld on appeal
on 12 March 2002, had still not been enforced. The Court
considers that this complaint falls 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 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 advanced no arguments on the merits of the application.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court observes that on 27 August 2001 the applicant obtained a
judgment in his favour by which he was to be paid a certain sum of
money by the Ministry of Justice, a State body. On 12 March 2002 the
judgment became final and enforceable. However, the judgment of 27
August 2001 has remained without enforcement to date, that is for
more than five years and nine months. No justification was advanced
by the Government for this delay.
- 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, among
other authorities, Burdov, cited above, §§ 34 et
seq.; and, more recently, Shilyayev v. Russia, no.
9647/02, §§ 32 et seq., 6 October 2005, and Reynbakh v.
Russia, no. 23405/03, §§ 23 et seq., 29 September
2005).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government did 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 for years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the
applicant's favour the domestic authorities prevented him from
receiving the money he could reasonably have expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 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
- As
regards the pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed the payment of
the awards under the judgment of 2 July 1996 and the court order of
4 November 1996. The applicant further claimed 650,000 Russian
roubles (RUB) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government submitted that the applicant's claims
for pecuniary damage do not have any connection with his application
before the Court. As regards the applicant's claims for non-pecuniary
damage, the Government argued that they were wholly excessive and
falling outside the scope of the present application. In conclusion,
the Government suggested that a finding of a violation would by
itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
- As to the pecuniary claim, the Court considers that no
causal link can be discerned between the violations found and the
applicant's claims for pecuniary damage. The Court notes, however,
that the State's outstanding obligation to enforce
the judgment of 27 August 2001, as upheld on appeal on 12 March 2002,
is not in dispute. It therefore considers that the Government
shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the domestic
award under the above judgment (see paragraph 7 above).
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. The Court takes into
account the relevant aspects, such as the length of the enforcement
proceedings and the nature of the award, and making its assessment on
an equitable basis, awards the applicant 3,000 euros in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant also claimed RUB 30,000 in compensation
of the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
- The
Government argued that no award should be made under this head since
the applicant failed to support his claim by any documents.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum. In the present case, the applicant did not submit any
materials to substantiate his claim. Thus the Court rejects the claim
for costs and expenses.
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 judgment of 27 August 2001, as upheld
on appeal on 12 March 2002,
and in addition pay the applicant EUR 3,000 (three thousand 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 on the above amount;
(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
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren
Nielsen Loukis Loukaides
Registrar President
