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 DOKOLIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 28488/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
September 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 Dokolin 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 28 August 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 28488/04) 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 Aleksandr Lavrentyevich
Dokolin (“the applicant”), on 19 July 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented
first by Mr P. Laptev and subsequently by Mrs V. Milinchuk,
the former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European
Court of Human Rights.
- On
30 September 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint
concerning non-enforcement of a binding 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
applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Obninsk, a town in the Kaluga
Region.
- As
a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to benefits.
Considering himself underpaid, he brought proceedings against the
local welfare authority.
- On
20 February 2004 the Obninsk Town Court held for the applicant,
awarded arrears, fixed a new amount of periodic benefits with
subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became
binding on 2 March 2004 and, according to the Government, was
gradually enforced by January 2006.
- Later,
the applicant sued the welfare authority for its failure to enforce
the judgment in time, but on 16 December 2004 the Kaluga Regional
Court rejected this claim.
- The
applicant also believed that the judgment remained unenforced with
regard to the adjustment for the cost of living. For this reason, he
sued the welfare authority, but on 7 April 2005 the Town Court
rejected this claim as unfounded.
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 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment. In so
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
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 admitted that the judgment remained unenforced for almost
two years, and that this delay breached the applicant’s rights.
- In
the circumstances of the present case the Court finds no reason to
hold otherwise. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his
second litigation was unfair, under Article 14 of the Convention that
he was discriminated against on the basis of his status as a victim
of Chernobyl, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome
of his second litigation.
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.
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 23,214.92 Russian roubles in respect of pecuniary
damage. This amount represented his estimate of allegedly underpaid
adjustment for the cost of living.
- The
Government argued that this claim had been unfounded because it had
been rejected by the Town Court on 7 April 2005.
- The
Court reiterates that domestic authorities are better placed to
assess the calculation of the applicant’s benefits, including
the adjustment for the cost of living (see Sirotin v. Russia
(dec.), no. 38712/03, 14 September 2006). Noting that the
domestic court rejected the applicant’s claim, the Court does
likewise.
- The
applicant also claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government argued that EUR 3,000 would be adequate just satisfaction.
- Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 1,600
under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim for the costs and expenses. Accordingly, the
Court makes no award under this head.
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 complaint concerning
non-enforcement of the judgment admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,600 (one
thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-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 18 September 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
