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 SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 44009/05)
JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
4 March 2010
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 Shtukaturov 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,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and
Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 February 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 44009/05) 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 Pavel Vladimirovich
Shtukaturov (“the applicant”), on 10 December 2005. The
applicant alleged that by depriving him of his legal capacity on
account of his mental health problems the domestic courts had
breached his rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. He
further alleged that his detention in a psychiatric hospital had
infringed Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
- In
a judgment delivered on 27 March 2008 (“the principal
judgment”), the Court held unanimously that there had been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the
European Convention on Human Rights concerning the proceedings which
deprived the applicant of his legal capacity; a violation of Article
8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention on
account of the complete deprivation of the applicant's legal
capacity; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and
security) concerning the applicant's confinement in a psychiatric
hospital; a violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning the
applicant's inability to obtain his release from hospital; and a
failure by the Russian Government to comply with its obligations
under Article 34 (right of individual petition) as it had hindered
the applicant's access to the Court (see Shtukaturov v. Russia,
no. 44009/05, 27 March 2008).
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- Since
the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was
not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the
Government and the applicant to submit, within three
months from the date on which the judgment became final in accordance
with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written
observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of
any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 154, and point 9
of the operative provisions).
- The
applicant and the Government each filed observations. On 7
April 2009 the Chamber, under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of
Court, requested the parties to submit an update on recent
developments in the case. By 22 May 2009 both parties had
submitted the information requested by the Chamber.
- In
their observations of 6 May 2009 the Government informed the Court
that on 27 April 2009 the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of
St Petersburg, at the request of the State guardianship
authority and following a fresh expert examination of the applicant's
mental condition, had declared him fully capable.
- The
applicant, in his observations of 22 May 2009, confirmed that
information. He also informed the Court that on 12 May 2009 the
decision of 27 April 2009 of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of
St Petersburg had became final and acquired legal force.
- Furthermore,
the applicant informed the Court that on 27 February 2009 the
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation had ruled on the
merits of his constitutional complaint and had found unconstitutional
the provisions of Article 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure which
had provided for the possibility of hearing the incapacity case in
the applicant's absence. The Constitutional Court also found
unconstitutional parts of Articles 52, 135 and 379 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, in so far as they had prevented the applicant from
bringing an appeal against the incapacitation decision of the
first-instance court. It further found unconstitutional the
provisions of Article 28 of the Psychiatric Care Act which had made
it possible to detain the applicant in a psychiatric hospital without
a court review for an indefinite period of time. The applicant
submitted a copy of the Constitutional Court decision.
THE LAW
- 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.”
I. DAMAGE
A. The applicant's claims
- In his updated claims for just satisfaction the
applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage. He insisted that he had suffered particularly grave
interference with his private life and personal liberty. As a result
of his full legal incapacitation almost every important civil right
had been taken away from him, leaving him feeling anxious,
vulnerable and helpless. Moreover, all effective domestic legal
avenues had been closed to him, thus reducing him to a non-person in
the eyes of the law. All important decisions relating to the
applicant's life had been at the discretion of his guardian, with
whom he had had an unstable and often hostile relationship and who
had often acted demonstrably against the applicant's wishes and
interests. One of the particularly serious consequences of the
applicant's incapacitation had been his unlawful prolonged detention
in a psychiatric hospital (from 4 November 2005 to 16 May 2006)
where he had been denied access to any of the safeguards which
normally attended involuntary hospitalisation. The applicant also
pointed out that the hospital authorities had prevented him from
meeting his legal representative and had otherwise obstructed his
efforts to pursue his ECHR complaint. That attitude on the part of
the authorities had increased his feelings of anxiety, uncertainty
and vulnerability. The applicant further referred to the awards made
by the Court in comparable cases (see, for example, Gajcsi v.
Hungary, no. 34503/03, §§ 28-30, 3 October 2006, and
H.F. v. Slovakia, no. 54797/00, §§ 50-52, 8 November
2005). The applicant invited the Court, in making an award, to take
into account the cumulative effect of the violations found in the
principal judgment.
- In
his additional submissions the applicant alleged that the reversal of
the original incapacity decision in 2009 had not provided him with an
adequate remedy, as he had already suffered violations of his rights
owing to his status as an incapable individual and there had been no
effective remedies available to him under Russian law by which to
obtain compensation for his suffering.
B. The Government's submissions
- The
Government considered these claims wholly unreasonable and excessive.
Referring to the case of Rakevich v. Russia, no. 58973/00,
28 October 2003, where the Court had found a breach of Article 5
§§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in similar circumstances,
the Government insisted that the just satisfaction for non-pecuniary
damage in the present case should not exceed EUR 3,000.
C. The Court's conclusion
- The
Court reiterates that the amount of compensation for non pecuniary
damage is assessed with a view to providing “reparation for the
anxiety, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the violation”
(see, for example, Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no.
38222/02, § 9, 13 November 2007).
- The
Court further reiterates that a judgment in which it finds a breach
imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to
the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as
to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the
breach. The Contracting States that are parties to a case are in
principle free to choose the means whereby they will comply with a
judgment in which the Court has found a breach. This discretion as to
the manner of execution of a judgment reflects the freedom of choice
attaching to the primary obligation of the Contracting States under
the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed (Article
1). If the nature of the breach allows of restitutio in integrum,
it is for the respondent State to effect it. If, on the other hand,
national law does not allow – or allows only partial –
reparation to be made for the consequences of the breach, Article 41
empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as
appears to it to be appropriate (see Papamichalopoulos and Others
v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A
no. 330-B).
- Turning
to the present case the Court notes that since the adoption of the
principal judgment the applicant's situation has changed. First, on
27 February 2009 the Constitutional Court
of Russia struck down as unconstitutional some of the provisions of
the Psychiatric Care Act and the Code of Civil Procedure applied in
the applicant's case. For the purposes of Article 41 of the
Convention the Court does not need to analyse in detail the decision
of the Constitutional Court of Russia and its consistency with the
Court's own position in the case. What is important is that the
decision of the Constitutional Court should have given the applicant
a certain degree of moral satisfaction, which the Court must
take into account when deciding on the award under Article 41 of the
Convention.
- Furthermore,
in May 2009, following the proceedings before the Vasileostrovskiy
District Court of St Petersburg, the applicant's legal capacity was
restored. Those proceedings were not instituted in pursuance of the
Court's principal judgment or even of the judgment of the
Constitutional Court of Russia. The case was brought to the District
Court by the State guardianship authority in view of the improvement
of the applicant's mental condition. Further, the decision of 27
April 2009 restoring the applicant's legal capacity did not cast
doubt on the validity of the original decision of the same court (of
28 December 2004) by which the applicant
had been declared incapable. Nevertheless,
the main practical consequence of the latter proceedings is that the
applicant's legal capacity is now fully restored. The Court cannot
ignore this fact and its positive effects for the applicant.
- All
that being said, the Court notes that neither of those decisions
remedied the past wrongs, which persisted for over four years. During
that period the State continued to infringe some of the applicant's
most fundamental rights. Thus, as the Court put it in the principal
judgment, the applicant was “deprived of his capacity to act
independently in almost all areas of life” (§ 83). He was
unlawfully detained in the hospital for more than six months, not
taking into account his subsequent periods of detention. Finally, the
applicant's suffering was undoubtedly aggravated by the State's
failure to respect his Article 6 rights and the authorities'
interference with his right of individual petition under Article 34
of the Convention.
- The
Court takes into account the cumulative effect of the violations of
the applicant's rights, their duration, and the fact that the
applicant, who suffered from a mental disorder, was in a particularly
vulnerable situation. Ruling on an equitable basis in accordance with
Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR
25,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
II. COSTS AND EXPENSES
- The
applicant did not claim any amount for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
Consequently, the Court does not make any award under this head.
III. 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
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 25,000 (twenty-five
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that
may be chargeable, 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 March 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
