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 SIZINTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications
nos. 38585/04, 2795/05, 18590/05, 24012/07 and 55283/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 April 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 Sizintseva and
Others 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 18 March 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in five applications (nos. 38585/04, 2795/05,
18590/05, 24012/07 and 55283/07) 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 five Russian nationals. The applicants' names
and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the
appended table.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially
represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by
their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
- On
various dates the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
- The
Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and
merits of the application no. 38585/04, but the Court rejected this
objection.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants live in the Sakha (Yakutiya)
Republic. Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the
appended table.
- In
1990, since cars were not available in free trade, the applicants
chose to obtain State special-purpose promissory notes which would
entitle them to Russian-made cars. Mrs Valentina Plotnikova should
have received a car in 1992 and the other applicants in 1993-1995.
The applicants paid the car's full value but never received the cars.
- In 1998 Mrs V. Plotnikova and in 2002 Mrs Gladkova and
I. Plotnikova received partial compensation of a car's monetary
value in accordance with the State Programme
for the redemption of the State internal debt (see paragraphs 20-22
below).
- All
applicants brought court actions against the authorities, seeking to
recover the full monetary value of the State promissory notes for
purchasing of Russian-made cars.
- On
the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts found, in
respect of each applicant, with reference to the State Commodity
Bonds Act of 1995 as amended on 2 June 2000 (see paragraph 19 below)
that the State could not be absolved from an obligation to compensate
them the full value of the cars. In particular, in the case of Mrs
Sizintseva the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) held
as follows:
“In accordance with the State Commodity Bonds Act
of 1 June 1995 the State commodity bonds, including the
special-purpose settlement orders, were
to be recognised as the State internal debt. [...]
The State has not complied with its obligation to
provide [the applicant] with a car as specified in a special-purpose
settlement order.
Article 55 of the Constitution
[...] stipulates that in the Russian Federation no laws shall be
adopted cancelling or derogating human rights and freedoms.
Therefore, the Federal law of 2 June 2000 amending the
[State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995] cannot be regarded as
well-founded and lawful insofar as it provides for the payment of the
compensation in the amount equalling to a part of the car's value
specified in the special-purpose settlement order.
These [amendments] do not comply with the constitutional
principles [cited above]”
The
court accordingly refused to take account of the amendments of 2 June
2000 and chose to apply the price scale for the cars to be purchased
under the settlement orders as in force on the date of delivery of
the judgment. Similarly, in the case of Mr Titov the
Mirninskiy Town Court held on 16 October 2001 that the amendments
introduced by the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 “constituted an
interference with the citizen's rights to receive a car” and
“contradicted to Article 55 of the Constitution”. When
determining the claim by Mrs Gladkova, the first instance court
reached a similar conclusion and ruled that the amendments in
question were adopted “in violation of [...] the Constitution,
the Civil Code and the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995”. In
the case of Irina Plotnikova the Neryungri Town Court hold that the
ex parte change of the conditions of redemption by the
Government was to the detriment of the applicant's interests and
therefore was unlawful.
- The
domestic courts accordingly awarded the applicants compensation in
the amounts specified below payable by the State authorities, these
sums representing the full monetary value of the cars on the date of
the delivery of the judgments. In cases of Mrs Gladkova, Valentina
Plotnikova and Irina Plotnikova the domestic courts deducted from the
full value of the car the amount of the compensation these applicants
had received in 1998-2002. On the dates specified in the Appendix
the judgments became final.
- The
awards remained unenforced.
- On
the dates cited in the appended table the Presidium of the Supreme
Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, upon an application from the
Ministry of Finance and by way of supervisory-review proceedings,
quashed the final judgments in the applicants' favour, re-examined
the cases, reduced the amount of the compensation to be paid in case
of Mrs Valentina Plotnikova to 28,009 Russian roubles (RUB) and
dismissed in full the actions of the remaining applicants. In each
case the Presidium found that the lower courts had misapplied the
applicable domestic law. In particular, in every case except for the
case of Valentina Plotnikova, the Presidium found that the lower
courts had neglected to take into account the provisions of the
amended State Commodity Bonds' Act and the Government's Resolution
no. 1006. In the case of Mrs Sizintseva the Presidium formulated
the conclusion as regards the quashing as follows:
“The [appeal instance] had not taken into account
the provisions of [the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 2
June 2000], in force at the material time. A decision by the [appeal
instance] based on incorrect application of the material law shall be
quashed”
- Similar
conclusion was reached by the supervisory instance in the other
cases.
-
Mrs Gladkova submitted that she had not been timeously notified of
the session of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Sakha (Yakutiya) and therefore could not attend it.
- According
to the Government, RUB 28,009 awarded to Mrs Valentina
Plotnikova by the supervisory
instance judgment of 26 November 2006 (see Appendix
below), has not been paid to her to date.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. The Constitution and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
- According
to Article 15 § 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,
the Constitution has the supreme juridical force, direct action and
shall be used on the whole territory of the Russian Federation. Laws
and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation shall not
contradict the Constitution.
- In
accordance with Article 125 § 4 of the Constitution, the
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reviews
constitutionality of the law applied or due to be applied in a
specific case in accordance with procedures established by federal
law, upon requests of the courts.
- By
the Ruling no. 19-П of 17 June 1998
the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation held that it had
exclusive competence to decide whether federal or regional laws
violated the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Ordinary courts
were not entitled to rule on the constitutionality of federal laws.
In case of doubt as to whether a law complied with the Constitution,
they should direct an inquiry to the Constitutional Court.
B. The State Commodity Bonds Act
- On 2 June 2000, section 3 of the
State Commodity Bonds Act (federal law no. 86-FZ of 1 June 1995)
providing that the special-purpose settlement orders were to be
recognised as the State internal debt was amended to read, in the
relevant parts, as follows:
“To set, in the [State
Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt of the
Russian Federation], the following sequence and terms of redemption
of State commodity bonds, depending on the type of the bond:
- [...] in respect of bearers of
special-purpose settlement orders that gave the right to purchase
passenger cars in 1991 and 1992 – payment of monetary
compensation equal to the value of the car described in the order, as
determined in co-ordination with car manufacturers at the moment of
redemption. [...]
- in respect of bearers of
special-purpose settlement orders that gave the right to purchase
passenger cars in 1993-1995 – payment of monetary compensation
equal to a part of the value of the car described in the order, as
determined on account of the percentage of the part of the full value
of car paid by the owner by 1 January 1992 (in accordance with the
price scales in force until 1 January 1992), as well as the price of
the cars determined in co-ordination with car manufacturers at the
moment of redemption”
20. For the summary of the other
relevant domestic law provisions see Grishchenko v. Russia,
(dec.), no.75907/01, 8 July 2004.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
- Given
that the five applications at hand concern similar facts and
complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court
decides to consider them in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
SUPERVISORY REVIEW
- The
applicants complained, notably, under Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the supervisory review of the
judgments. Mrs Gladkova complained under these provisions that she
was not notified of the supervisory review hearing and could not be
present at the examination of her case. These Articles, insofar as
relevant, provide 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...”
A. The parties' submissions
- As
regards the case of Mrs Sizintseva, the
Government argued that she had not raised a legal certainty issue in
her application to the Court, but only challenged the fairness of the
domestic proceedings. Thus, even having a right to investigate
proprio motu
whether the facts at consideration disclosed other violations of the
Convention than those stated in the application, the Court had raised
the legal certainty issue outside the six months time-limit
established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
- The
Government further submitted, in respect of all cases, that the
supervisory review had not breached the principle of legal certainty:
it had been preceded by an ordinary appeal, only one
supervisory-review instance had been engaged, the request for the
quashing had been lodged within six months, it had been initiated by
a party to the proceedings and it had been meant to correct a
misapplication of material law.
- They
further argued that the supervisory review had aimed at remedying a
fundamental defect of the proceedings before the lower courts. They
stressed that the lower courts were not competent to rule on
compliance of the provisions of the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 with
the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Instead, they should have
introduced a request for review of the constitutionality of the
Federal Law in question with the Constitutional Court and suspend the
proceedings pending delivery of the relevant ruling. However, they
failed to make such request, and no suspension of the proceedings
took place. Therefore, the examination of the applicants' cases
before the lower courts was tarnished by a fundamental defect, namely
abuse of power by the courts and jurisdictional error. In these
circumstances, quashing was the only available way to rectify the
fundamental defect and to restore legal certainty in the present
cases.
- They
further argued that the applicants' rights under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 had not been prejudiced: Mrs Gladkova, V. Plotnikova
and I. Plotnikova had received compensation for the cars before
the litigation, while the other
applicants had failed to apply for redemption of the promissory
notes.
- The
applicants maintained their claims.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
- As
regards the Court's competence to examine Mrs Sizintseva's case and
as concerns compliance with the six months rule, the Court reiterates
that it has jurisdiction to review in the light of the entirety of
the Convention's requirements the circumstances complained of by an
applicant and, notably, is free to attribute to the facts of the
case, as found to be established on the evidence before it, a
characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant
or, if need be, to view the facts in a different manner (see Foti
and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, §
44, and Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia (dec.), nos.
46133/99 and 48183/99, 3 October 2002). The Court further notes that
the application form was submitted by Mrs Sizintseva on 7
October 2004, that is within six months from the date of the quashing
of the judgment in her favour. The application set out the relevant
facts concerning the supervisory review proceedings and made a
general claim in relation to Article 6 of the Convention. The Court
therefore finds that it may examine whether the proceedings in
question disclose a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see,
mutatis mutandis, C.J.M.E., J.C.D. AND W.A.C.S. v. the
Netherlands, nos. 5100/71 et al, Commission decision of 29 May
1973, and O'Reilly v. Ireland, no. 21624/93,
Commission decision of 31 August 1994) and dismisses the objection.
- The
Court further notes that the applications are not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must
therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) Article 6 of the Convention
i. Supervisory review procedure: legal certainty
- The
Court reiterates that the quashing by way of supervisory review of a
judicial decision which has become final and binding may render the
litigant's right to a court illusory and infringe the principle of
legal certainty (see, among many other authorities, Brumărescu
v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999 VII;
Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 56-58, 24
July 2003). Departures from that principle are justified only when
made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18
January 2007, and Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§
25-34, 31 July 2008).
- At
the outset the Court notes that in the Government's view the
annulment of the judgments on supervisory review was required by the
need to rectify a fundamental defect in the initial domestic
proceedings. The Court
reiterates its constant approach that a jurisdictional error, a
serious breach of court procedure or abuses of power may, in
principle, be regarded as a fundamental defect and therefore justify
the quashing (see Luchkina
v. Russia, no.
3548/04, § 21, 10 April 2008).
However, nothing in the respective rulings of the Presidium of the
Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic in the cases at hand
enables the Court to conclude that the initial judgments were indeed
quashed because these courts had
ruled on the constitutionality of the federal law in excess of their
jurisdiction. In none of the judgments was the alleged
jurisdictional error or abuse of competence or any other procedural
defect cited as a ground for the annulment of the lower courts'
findings. On the contrary, it clearly follows from the wording of the
supervisory-instance rulings that the sole ground for the quashing
was the misinterpretation and incorrect application of the provisions
of the said Federal Law by the courts. Furthermore,
the respondent authority did not claim before the supervisory-review
that the previous proceedings had been tarnished by a fundamental
defect, such as, in particular, a jurisdictional error, serious
breaches of court procedure or abuses of power (see Luchkina,
cited above).
Such argument was only advanced in the Government's observations. In
the absence of any reference to the ground for quashing cited by the
Government in the texts of the supervisory-instance rulings, the
Court is unable to conclude that the quashing was caused, and even
less justified by the substantive jurisdictional error by the lower
courts referred to by the Government. It therefore rejects the
Government's argument.
- The
Court further reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of
a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party's
disagreement with the assessment made by the first-instance and
appeal courts is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling
character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable
judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim
(see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 30, 7 June
2007; and Kot,
cited above, § 29). The Government did not put forward
any arguments which would enable the Court to reach a different
conclusion in the present five cases. There has been, accordingly, a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
ii. Supervisory review procedure: procedural issues
- With regard to the complaint
about the procedural defects of the hearing before the Presidium of
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) raised by Mrs
Gladkova, the Court finds that, having concluded that there had been
an infringement of the applicant's “right to a court” by
the very use of the supervisory review procedure, it is not necessary
to consider whether the procedural guarantees of Article 6 of the
Convention were available in those proceedings (cf. Volkova
v. Russia, no. 48758/99, § 39,
5 April 2005).
(b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
- The
Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding
and enforceable judgment constitutes the beneficiary's “possession”
within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other
authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 69, 6
October 2005).
- The
Court has found in many cases that the quashing of enforceable
judgments frustrated the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial
decision and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the money
they had legitimately expected to receive (see, among others, Ivanova
v. Russia, no. 11697/05, § 23, 24 April 2008,
Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 27101/04, § 32,
3 April 2008). In these circumstances, even assuming that the
interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court
considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgments in the
applicants' favour by way of supervisory review placed an excessive
burden on them and was incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol
No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article in
the present five cases.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT
- The
applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in
their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both cited above.
- The
Government alleged that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic
remedies available to them under domestic law. They notably referred
to Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowing to complain
about the authorities' negligence and to Chapter 59 of the Civil Code
opening a way to claim non-pecuniary damage. In the Government's view
the latter provision had proven its effectiveness in practice, as
shown by several examples of domestic case-law. The Government
further argued, in respect of several applicants, that they had
failed to submit the enforcement documents to the relevant
authorities and in good time, and therefore delayed execution of the
awards. In some cases they claimed
that the judgments in the applicants' favour had not been
enforced because of the supervisory-review proceedings which had
eventually resulted in the quashing of the respective awards. As
regards the application by Mrs Sizintseva, they
argued that the enforcement of the judgment in her favour did not
exceed ten months and was compatible with the Convention.
- The
applicants maintained their claims. They argued that they had not
significantly protracted the execution of the judgments and that
substantial delays in enforcement had been attributable to the
authorities.
A. Case
no. 38585/04 by Mrs Sizintseva
-
The Court observes that the principles insisting that a final
judicial decision must not be called into question and should be
enforced represent two aspects of the same general concept, namely
the right to a court (see Boris
Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 30671/03, §§
41-42, 15 February 2007; and Sobelin
and Others v. Russia, no. 30672/03
et seq., §§ 67-68,
3 May 2007). The Court
further observes that the judgment in the applicant's favour was
quashed shortly after having become binding and enforceable. In these
circumstances, it considers that Mrs Sizintseva's non-enforcement
complaint is closely linked to the supervisory review issue and
should be declared admissible as well. However, having regard to its
findings above concerning violation of the applicant's rights on
account of the quashing of the judgments in their favour, the Court
does not consider it necessary, in the circumstances of the case, to
examine her complaint concerning the non enforcement of the
respective judgment separately (see Sobelin
and Others, cited above).
B. The remaining cases (nos. 2795/05, 18590/05, 24012/07 and
55283/07)
1. Admissibility
- As regards exhaustion, the Court has recently
assessed the effectiveness of the remedies referred to by the
Government and found that the suggested remedies were
ineffective (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2),
no. 33509/04, §§ 103 and 106-116, 15 January 2009, and
Moroko v. Russia, no. 20937/07, §§ 25-30, 12 June
2008). The Government's objection must
therefore be dismissed.
- The
Court further notes that the applicants' non-enforcement complaint is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
2. 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). The Court further
reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a manner which has been
found to have been incompatible with the principle of legal certainty
and the applicant's “right to a court” cannot be accepted
as justification for the failure to enforce that judgment (see
Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).
In the present cases the judgments in the applicants' favour were
enforceable until at least the respective dates of quashing and it
was incumbent on the State to abide by their terms (see Velskaya
v. Russia, no. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006).
However, in each case the State avoided paying the judgment debt for
more than one year.
- As
regards the objection concerning the applicants' failure to submit
the enforcement papers in good time, the Court reiterates that where
a judgment is against the State, the State must take the initiative
to enforce it (see Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, §§
21–23, 12 June 2008). The complexity of the domestic
enforcement procedure cannot relieve the State of its obligation to
enforce a binding judicial decision within a reasonable time (see
Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 70).
- There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the four cases at hand.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Mrs Gladkova (application no. 18590/05)
complained under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention of the length of the court proceedings in her case.
- The
Court has examined this complaint as submitted by the applicant.
Having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that
the complaint does 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 by Mrs Gladkova must be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. 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
1. Pecuniary damage
(a) The parties' submissions
- Mrs
Sizintseva claimed 127,825 Russian roubles (RUB) of the judgment
debt and RUB 79,080.64 of the interest arising
out of the delayed enforcement of the judgment in her favour,
calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank
of Russia for the period from the domestic judgment's entry into
force until the date of the Court's judgment.
- Mr
Titov claimed RUB 115,000 of a full
monetary value of a car as determined by the judgment in his favour,
as well as the interest. He had not
provided a detailed calculation of the interest. However, he
submitted that the market value of a car had increased and amounted
to RUB 350,000 on the date of submission
of his claim.
- Mrs
Gladkova claimed that RUB 109,609 of
the initial judgment debt, as well as RUB 88,739.45 representing the
interest calculated at the rate valid on 8 May 2009, the date of
submission of her claims, should be awarded to her in respect of
pecuniary damage.
- Mrs
V. Plotnikova claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage, without further substantiation.
- Finally,
Mrs I. Plotnikova claimed RUB 110,940.96 equalling to the
amount of the initial judgment debt.
- The
Government submitted that no just satisfaction award should be made
to the applicants, since there had been no violation of their rights.
In any event, their claims were excessive and unreasonable. In
particular, they argued that Mrs Sizintseva, Gladkova and I.
Plotnikova could not claim the interest for the periods following the
quashing of the respective judgments in their favour. They pointed
out that Mr Titov had neither specified the method of calculation of
the interest nor furnished any documents in respect of his claim. The
Government further contested the submissions by Mrs V. Plotnikova
as unfounded and stressed that she had failed to specify the method
of the calculation or to itemise her claims under this head.
(b) The Court's assessment
- The
Court recalls that the most appropriate form of
redress in respect of the violations found would be to put the
applicants as far as possible in the position they would have been if
the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see Piersack
v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, Series A
no. 85, p. 16, § 12, and, mutatis mutandis,
Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23
October 2003). The Court considers that this principle should apply
in the present cases.
- As
regards the application by Mrs V. Plotnikova, the Court notes that
the initial domestic award had remained unenforced until the date of
its quashing and then was reduced as a result of the
supervisory-review proceedings. Moreover, it appears that the new
judgment debt had not been paid to the applicant either. In these
circumstances, the Court awards the applicant the equivalent
in euros of the full amount granted by the initial judgment of
24 April 2002 in her favour.
- As
regards the remaining four cases, the Court notes that the applicants
were prevented from receiving the amounts they had legitimately
expected to receive under the binding and enforceable judgments
delivered by domestic courts in their favour. Accordingly the Court
considers appropriate to award the applicants
the equivalent in euros of the sums that they would have received if
the judgments in their favour had not been quashed (see Bolyukh
v. Russia, no. 19134/05, § 39,
31 July 2007).
- The
Court further recalls its constant approach that the adequacy of the
compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without
reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value (see,
mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, §
28, 13 January 2005).
The Court accepts the applicants'
claims relating to the loss of value of the domestic awards since the
delivery of the judgments in their favour and finds it appropriate to
award additional sums in this respect, where they were requested (see
Kondrashov and Others v. Russia,
nos. 2068/03 et al.,
§ 42, 8 January 2009). Taking
into account that in none of the cases the Government had submitted
any alternative method of calculation of the applicants' pecuniary
losses, the Court will determine the compensation on the basis of the
method suggested by the applicants. However, as regards
the applicants' claims in respect of their future pecuniary loss, the
Court recalls that after the final judgments were quashed they ceased
to exist under domestic law; it cannot restore the power of these
judgments. Therefore, the Court only grants the applicants' claims in
respect of the interest in so far as they are made in respect of the
periods preceding the quashing.
- Making its estimate on the basis
of information at its disposal, the
Court accordingly awards the following amounts, plus any tax that may
be chargeable:
EUR
3,804 to N. Sizintseva;
EUR
3,398 to S. Titov;
EUR
3,007 to R. Gladkova;
EUR
3,328 to V. Plotnikova;
EUR
3,354 to I. Plotnikova.
These
amounts include the initial award and the compensation for loss of
value of the domestic court awards for the periods preceding the
quashing. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims
under this head.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
- Mrs Sizintseva claimed RUB 100,000, Mr Titov EUR
5,000, Mrs Gladkova EUR 10,000, Mrs V. Plotnikova EUR 25,000 and
Mrs I. Plotnikova RUB 150,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government challenged the claims as unsubstantiated and excessive. In
case of Irina Plotnikova they suggested that, should the Court make
any award under this head, the latter should not exceed EUR 2,000
(see Senchenko and Others and 35 other
“Yakut pensioners” cases v. Russia,
nos. 32865/06 et seq., § 15, 28 May 2009)
- Having
regard to the nature of the breach in this case, making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards to each
applicant the sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
1. Case of Mrs Sizintseva
- The
applicant claimed reimbursement of the lawyer's fee in the amount of
RUB 5,500 plus seven per cent of the eventual Court award. She
submitted copies of the contract with the lawyer and a receipt
confirming payment of RUB 3,000. She further claimed RUB 339,35 of
postal expenses and submitted that she had paid RUB 300 to a local
audit agency for the calculation of the pecuniary loss in her case.
- The
Government contested the claims as excessive and unfounded.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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. The Court accordingly
rejects the claim related to the Court's eventual award. At
the same time, regard being had to the information in its possession
and the above criteria, the Court allows the remainder of her claim
and considers it reasonable to award Mrs Sizintseva the sum of EUR 99
(ninety-nine euros) for the proceedings before the Court, plus any
tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
2. Four remaining cases
- The
applicants in the remaining four cases did not claim costs or
expenses and there is accordingly no call to make an 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
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares the complaint under Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the
non-enforcement and quashing of the judgments in the applicants'
favour on supervisory review admissible and the remainder of the
applications inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all
cases on account of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants'
favour by way of supervisory review;
- Holds, in respect of the applications by Mr
Titov, Mrs Gladkova, Mrs V. Plotnikova and Mrs I.
Plotnikova, that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on
account of non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour;
- Holds that there is no need to examine the
non-enforcement complaint by Mrs Sizintseva under Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of
non-enforcement of the judgment of 4 August 2003;
- Holds
(a) in
respect of all applications, that the respondent State is to pay the
applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, the following sums, plus any tax that may be chargeable
to the applicants, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i)
in respect of pecuniary damage:
EUR
3,804 (three thousand eight hundred and four euros) to N. Sizintseva;
EUR
3,398 (three thousand three hundred and ninety eight euros) to S.
Titov;
EUR
3,007 (three thousand and seven euros) to R. Gladkova;
EUR
3,328 (three thousand three hundred and
twenty-eight euros) to V. Plotnikova;
EUR
3,354 (three thousand three hundred and fifty four euros) to
I. Plotnikova;
(ii)
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each applicant in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii)
EUR 99 (ninety-nine euros) to N. Sizintseva in respect of costs and
expenses;
(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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 April 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President
APPENDIX
|
application
number, date of lodging
|
applicant's
name and year of birth
|
judgment
in the applicant's favour (date, court)
|
final
on
|
Award
(rub)
|
quashing
on supervisory review (date)
|
|
38585/04,
07/10/2004
|
Sizintseva
Nadezhda Petrovna
(1949)
|
4
August 2003, the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic
|
The
same date
|
127,825
|
27
May 2004
|
|
2795/05
05/04/2005
|
Titov
Sergey Aleksandrovich
(1974)
|
14
March 2002, the Mirnyy District Court
|
10
June 2002, as amended on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha
(Yakutia) Republic
|
115,000
|
14
October 2004
|
|
18590/05
19/04/2005
|
Gladkova Rimma
Petrovna
(1945)
|
11
February 2003, the Mirninyy District Court
|
24
March 2003
|
109,609
|
11
November 2004
|
|
24012/07
08/05/2007
|
Plotnikova
Valentina Petrovna
(1937)
|
17 June
2002, the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic
|
The
same date
|
91,520
|
23
November 2006 (award reduced to RUB 28,009)
|
|
55283/07
30/05/2007
|
Plotnikova
Irina Yakovlevma
(1952)
|
6
June 2003, the Nerungri Town Court
|
13
August 2003
|
110,940
|
21
December 2006
|
