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 SUKHORUKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 23596/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31
July 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 Sukhorukov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 July 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 23596/04) 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 Valeriy Lukyanovich
Sukhorukov (“the applicant”), on 4 June 2004.
- 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
23 May 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 Government objected to the application of Article 29 §
3, but the Court dismissed this objection.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ust-Labinsk, a town in the
Krasnodar Region.
- On
31 March 1999 the Ust-Labinskiy District Court awarded the applicant
2,000 Russian roubles against a local welfare authority for a delayed
payment of social benefits. This judgment became binding on 6 May
1999, but has not been enforced to date.
- On
1 June 1999 the applicant submitted enforcement papers to bailiffs,
and on 29 June 1999 the bailiffs passed the papers to the Treasury.
In December 2001 the Treasury returned the papers to the applicant,
because in the meantime the procedure of enforcement had changed.
- To
vindicate his right to a timely enforcement of the judgment, the
applicant sued bailiffs for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On
16 August 2002 the District Court rejected this claim, having
found that the bailiffs had done everything they should have done to
enforce the judgment.
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
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the
judgment. Insofar 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 inadmissible. The applicant
had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, because he could have
complained to a prosecutor’s office. Besides, the authorities
had not been significantly responsible for the delayed enforcement.
The delay had been mainly caused by the adoption of new rules of
enforcement, the applicant’s failure to follow them, and the
applicant’s generally disinterested attitude.
- The
applicant insisted on his complaint. He had not delayed the
enforcement. He had many times complained to authorities, but without
result.
- With
regard to domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it is the
Government who bear the burden of proof of the remedies’
existence. The Government must show that the remedy was effective,
accessible, capable of providing redress, and that it offered
reasonable prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis,
Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR
1999-V). In the present case, the Government have not shown how
complaints to prosecutors would have met these requirements (compare
with, for example, John Sammut and Visa Investments Limited v.
Malta (dec.), no. 27023/03, §§ 39–46, 16
October 2007). It follows that this part of the complaint cannot be
rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
- 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).
- In
the present case, the non-enforcement of the judgment has lasted for
over nine years. The Government attributed most of this delay to the
applicant’s failure to follow the changing procedure of
enforcement. However, the Court reiterates that, where a judgment is
against the State, a person may not be expected to bring separate
enforcement proceedings (see Metaxas
v. Greece,
no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004). By taking no
initiative to comply with the judgment for such a considerable time,
the authorities have breached the applicant’s rights.
- There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had
no effective domestic remedy against the non-enforcement. Article 13
of the Convention reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
- Having
regard to the finding relating to the exhaustion of domestic remedies
(see § 12 above), the Court considers that the Government have
not shown that the applicant had at his disposal effective domestic
remedies (see Lositskiy v. Russia, no. 24395/02, §§ 30,
14 December 2006).
- There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 13 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 340 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
representing default interest for the non-payment of the judgment
debt. He also claimed EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government noted that these claims were unjustified. The applicant
could have applied for interest in Russia, and there had been no
causal link between the alleged violation and non-pecuniary damage.
- As
to pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates that violations of Article
6 are best redressed by putting an applicant in the position he would
have been if Article 6 had been respected. The Government shall
therefore secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the
domestic courts’ award (see,
with further references, Poznakhirina v. Russia,
no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005). In
addition, the Court awards the applicant EUR 135 as estimated
interest for the non-payment of the judgment debt.
- As
to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that in the circumstance
of the case a mere finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just
satisfaction.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant has made no claim under this head. Hence the Court makes no
award.
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 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds that:
(a) that
the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the
enforcement of the award made by the domestic court,
and in addition pay the applicant EUR 135 (one hundred
thirty-five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect
of pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement;
(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 31 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
