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 PLEKHOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 42752/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31 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 Plekhova v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoli
Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and A.
Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 42752/04) 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 Leonidovna
Plekhova (“the applicant”), on 18 October 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
30 September 2005 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 1957 and lives in Teykovo, Ivanovo Region.
- The
applicant is entitled to welfare payments for her children. In
2001 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority,
claiming arrears in those payments for 1998 – 2000.
- By
default judgment of 21 November 2001 the Teykovo Town Court of the
Ivanovo Region awarded 11,151.90 Russian roubles (RUB) in her favour.
Ten days later the judgment became final and a writ of execution was
issued and sent to the bailiffs.
- In
June 2002 the welfare authority paid a part of the applicant's court
award in the amount of RUB 1,928.63.
- In
2003 the applicant brought a fresh claim, seeking to have her court
award linked to the rate of inflation.
- On
24 March 2003 the Teykovo Town Court awarded her RUB 1,854.39.
The judgment became final ten days later and enforcement proceedings
were commenced accordingly.
- In
2004 the applicant lodged a court complaint against the bailiffs
concerning their failure to enforce the judgments of 21 November 2001
and 24 March 2003 in time.
- On
30 March 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo rejected the
applicant's claims as groundless, having found that the delays in the
enforcement proceedings had not been imputable to the bailiffs.
- On
12 May 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the first-instance
judgment on appeal.
- Thereafter
the applicant unsuccessfully applied for a supervisory review of the
judgment of 30 March 2004 and the decision of 12 May 2004.
- On
4 June 2004 the welfare authority paid the applicant another part of
the judgment debt in the amount of RUB 4,207.92.
- On
21 December 2004 the welfare authority paid the applicant the
remaining part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUB 6,869.74.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF APPLICATION
- The
Government submitted that although the judgments in the applicant's
favour had been fully executed in December 2004, the applicant had
not informed the Court accordingly. In the Government's view, such
failure amounted to an abuse of the right of application within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
Article
35 § 3, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“The Court shall declare inadmissible any
individual application submitted under Article 34 which it
considers ... an abuse of the right of application.”
- The
applicant submitted that because of the small size of her pension she
could not afford to incur additional expense in order to provide
further information to the Court.
- The
Court reiterates that, except in extraordinary cases, an application
may only be rejected as abusive if it was knowingly based on untrue
facts (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16
September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV,
§§ 53-54; I.S. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no.
32438/96, 6 April 2000; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96,
§ 36, ECHR 2000 X). The Court observes that on
18 October 2004, when the application was submitted, the
judgments in question had not been fully executed.
- The
Court further reiterates that applicants should keep it informed of
all circumstances relevant to the application. It notes that the
applicant has indeed failed to inform it without undue delay of
developments in her case. However, in the circumstances of the
present case, it does not consider this failure, although
regrettable, to amount to an abuse of the right of petition.
- Accordingly
the Government's objection is dismissed.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the prolonged failure to
execute the two judgments in her favour. Article 6, in so far as
relevant, provides as follows:
“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 reads as follows:
“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.”
- The
Government conceded that the judgments in the applicant's favour had
been executed with delay due to insufficient financial provision of
the Ivanovo District Main Financial Department.
- The
applicant maintained her complaint.
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 Court notes that the delay in executing the
judgment of the Teykovo Town Court of 21 November 2001 constituted
approximately three years and the delay in executing the judgment of
the same court of 24 March 2003 constituted over a year and
a half. 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 those in the present case (see, among other
authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR
2002-III; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, 6 October
2005; and Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02,
17 March 2005).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have 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 execute the final judicial decisions in the
applicant's favour the domestic authorities deprived the provisions
of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect and prevented her from
receiving the money she could reasonably have expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage suffered as a result of the violation.
- The
Government accepted that the applicant might have suffered distress
as a result of the State authorities' failure to enforce the
judgments in her favour during several years. However, they asserted
that, should the Court find a violation, that would in itself
constitute sufficient just satisfaction (Bobrova v. Russia,
no. 24654/03, 17 November 2005).
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and
frustration resulting from the State authorities' failure to execute
a final judicial decision in her favour, and that this cannot be
sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. The Court
has taken into account the award it made in the case of Burdov
(cited above), the nature of the decision whose non execution
was at issue in the present case, the delay in the execution
proceedings and other relevant considerations. Making its assessment
on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,300 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 2,317.60 for costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. She enclosed postal receipts for the amount
claimed.
- The
Government submitted that the award for costs and expenses should not
exceed RUB 2,200.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
the 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, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 70 for the proceedings before the
Court.
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 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, the following
amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the date of
settlement:
(i) EUR
2,300 (two thousand three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR
70 (seventy euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
