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 DENISOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 34431/04)
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 Denisova 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,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, 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. 34431/04) 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, Ms Lyudmila Borisovna
Denisova (“the applicant”), on 16 July 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms S. Poznakhirina, a human-rights
activist practising in Novovoronezh. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
31 May 2006 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 1938 and lives in Novovoronezh, a town in the
Voronezh Region.
- As
a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to benefits.
Considering herself underpaid, she brought six sets of proceedings
against the local welfare authority.
- On
18 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court awarded the applicant
arrears and legal costs in the amount of 3,014.09 Russian roubles
(RUB). This judgment became binding on 28 October 2000 and was partly
enforced on 24 September 2003.
- On
16 June 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant more arrears in the
amount of RUB 19,315.50. This judgment became binding on 19 August
2003 and was enforced on 17 December 2004.
- On
16 February 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the
amount of RUB 16,765.50, and on 1 April 2004 the appeal court in
addition fixed a new amount of periodic payments. This judgment
became binding on 1 April 2004 and was enforced on 3 August 2005.
- On
15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the
amount of RUB 4,973.57. This judgment became binding on 25 March 2004
and was enforced on an unspecified date.
- On
26 August 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the
amount of RUB 21,118.50. This judgment became binding on 6 September
2004 and was enforced on 24 August 2005.
- On
26 August 2004 the Town Court also awarded the applicant further
arrears in the amount of RUB 1,772.30 and fixed a new amount of
periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 6 September 2004
and was enforced on an unspecified date.
- On
the applicant’s request, on 31 May and 16 November 2005 the
Town Court compensated the applicant’s inflationary loss caused
by the delayed enforcement of the judgments in the total amount of
RUB 9,369.86.
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 non-enforcement of the judgments. 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
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 admitted that the applicant’s rights under Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been
breached.
- In
the circumstances of the present case the Court finds no reason to
hold otherwise. Accordingly, there has been a violation of these
Articles.
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
- The
applicant claimed 816 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage.
This amount represented her inflationary loss caused by the delayed
enforcement. The Government argued that this loss could have been
made good in domestic proceedings.
- The
Court notes that the applicant’s inflationary loss has already
been made good by the Town Court on 31 May and 16 November 2005. It
therefore rejects this claim.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government noted that any award should be consistent with the
Court’s past awards in similar cases.
- The
Court accepts that the applicant must have been distressed by the
delayed enforcement of the judgments. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 2,300 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 application admissible;
- 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 2,300 (two
thousand three 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
