ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.11.2005<ДЕЛО КОРЧАГИНА И ДРУГИЕ (korchagina and others) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KORCHAGINA AND
OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 27295/03)
JUDGMENT
<*>
(Strasbourg, 17.XI.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> 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 Korchagina and Others v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed
of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 October 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 27295/03)
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 six Russian nationals listed in the appendix on 26 March
2003.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr
P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
3. On 8 March 2004 the Court decided to communicate 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
I. The circumstances of the case
4.
The applicants are residents of Voronezh.
5. The applicants are in
receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 - 2000 they brought
separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming
arrears in those payments.
6. On the dates set out in the appendix the
domestic courts granted the applicants" claims and ordered the welfare authority
to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings were commenced
accordingly.
7. On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement
proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants" favour and returned
them the writs of execution referring to the lack of the debtor"s funds.
8. In 2002 - 2004 the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies
seeking to have the judgments in the favour enforced.
9. On 2 June 2004
the applicants were paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of
execution.
II. Relevant domestic law
10. Section 9 of the Federal Law on
Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997 provides that a bailiff"s order on the
institution of enforcement proceedings must fix a time-limit for the defendant"s
voluntary compliance with a writ of execution. The time-limit may not exceed
five days. The bailiff must also warn the defendant that coercive action will
follow, should the defendant fail to comply with the time-limit.
11.
Under Section 13 of the Law, the enforcement proceedings should be completed
within two months of the receipt of the writ of enforcement by the
bailiff.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the
Convention
and Article 1 of Protocl No. 1 to the Convention
12. The
applicants complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments in
their favour. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles, in
so far as relevant, 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
13. The Government informed the Court that
the authorities of the Voronezh Region had attempted to secure a friendly
settlement of the case and that the applicants had refused to accept the
friendly settlement on the terms proposed by the authorities. By reference to
this refusal and to the fact that, in any event, the judgments in the
applicants" favour had been enforced, the Government invited the Court to strike
out the application, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
14.
The applicants disagreed with the Government"s arguments and maintained their
complaints. As regards the friendly settlement proposal, the applicants claimed
that the authorities of the Voronezh Region had made an offer to them, but did
not allow the applicants to acquaint themselves with the terms of that offer and
that, in any event, the amount of the judgment debts transferred to their
accounts in 2004 had lost the purchasing power due to inflation.
15. The
Court firstly observes that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a
friendly settlement of the case. The Court recalls that under certain
circumstances an application may indeed be struck out of its list of cases under
Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration
by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the
case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], No. 26307/95, § 76, ECHR
2003-...).
16. On the facts, the Court observes that the Government
failed to submit with the Court any formal statement capable of falling into
that category and offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human
rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its
examination of the case (see, by contrast, to Akman v. Turkey (striking out),
No. 37453/97, §§ 23 - 24, ECHR 2001-VI).
17. As regards the
Government"s argument that the judgments in question have already been enforced,
the Court considers that the mere fact that the authorities complied with the
judgments after a substantial delay cannot be viewed in this case as
automatically depriving the applicants of their victim status under the
Convention (see, e.g., Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, § 16, 24 February
2005).
18. In the light of the above considerations, the Court rejects
the Government"s request to strike the application out under Article 37 of the
Convention.
19. 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
20. The Government advanced no arguments
on the merits of the application.
21. The applicants maintained their
complaint.
22. The Court observes that the judgments in the applicants"
favour remained inoperative for several years. No justification was advanced by
the Government for the respective delays.
23. 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 the ones in the present case (see,
among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and, more
recently, Petrushko, cited above, or Poznakhirina v. Russia, No. 25964/02, 24
February 2005).
24. Having examined the material submitted to it, the
Court notes that the Government did 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 comply with the enforceable judgments in the applicants" favour the domestic
authorities prevented them from receiving the money they could reasonably have
expected to receive.
25. There has accordingly been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. Other
alleged violations of the Convention
26. The applicants also complained that
the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour violated their
rights to effective domestic remedies under Article 13 of the Convention.
27. The Court considers that this complaint is linked to the above issues of
non-enforcement to such an extent that it should be declared admissible as well.
However, having regard to the finding relating to Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph
25 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in
this case, there has been a violation of Article 13.
III. Application of
Article 41 of the Convention
28. 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
29.
As regards compensation for pecuniary damages, the applicants claimed the
interest payable at statutory rate for the default period in the amount of RUR
3,791.85 for the first applicant, RUR 1,459.61 for the second applicant, RUR
3,263.19 for the third applicant, RUR 957.89 for the fourth applicant, RUR
5,883.43 for the fifth applicant and RUR 3,626.24 for the sixth applicant. They
also claimed RUR 11,569.50, RUR 2,718.45, RUR 6,314.79, RUR 3,751.33, RUR
10,992.38 and RUR 17,968.91 without further explanation. In addition, the
applicant claimed each 31,000 US dollars (USD), of which USD 10,000 represented
the amount they could have earned during the period when, instead, they had
sought the enforcement of their court awards and USD 20,000 was the compensation
for the losses their children had sustained as a result of the untimely
enforcement of the judgment in their favour in respect of pecuniary damage. The
applicants did not specify their claims as regards the remaining USD 1,000. They
also claimed USD 45,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
30. The
Government contested the applicants" claims as wholly excessive and unjustified.
They argued that there was no causal link between the damage allegedly sustained
by the applicants and the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour. The
Government considered that should the Court find a violation in this case that
would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
31. The Court
finds that some pecuniary loss must have been occasioned by reason of the period
that elapsed from the time between the entry into force of the judgments in
question and their subsequent enforcement (see, e.g., Poznakhirina, cited above,
§ 34 and Makarova and others v. Russia, No. 7023/03, 24 February 2005, § 38).
Having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court awards the first
applicant RUR 3,791.85, the second applicant RUR 1,459.61, the third applicant
RUR 3,263.19, the fourth applicant RUR 957.89, the fifth applicant RUR 5,883.43
and the sixth applicant RUR 3,626.24, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of pecuniary damage.
32. As regards the compensation for
non-pecuniary damage, the Court would not exclude that the applicants might have
suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities" failure
to enforce the judgments in their favour. However, having regard to the nature
of the breach in this case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient
just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants (see,
in a similar context, Poznakhirina, cited above, § 35).
B. Costs and
expenses
33. The applicants also claimed RUR 10,045 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
34. The
Government considered that the documents submitted by the applicants did not
indicate that the applicants had incurred any costs.
35. According to the
Court"s case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his 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 each applicant the sum of EUR 20 in
respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
C.
Default interest
36. 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
1. Declares the application admissible;
2.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
3. Holds that there is no need to
examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, the following amounts:
(i) RUR 3,791.85 (three thousand seven
hundred and ninety-one roubles and eighty-five kopecks) to the first applicant,
RUR 1,459.61 (one thousand four hundred and fifty-nine roubles and sixty-one
kopecks) to the second applicant, RUR 3,263.19 (three thousand two hundred and
sixty-three roubles and nineteen kopecks) to the third applicant, RUR 957.89
(nine hundred and fifty-seven roubles and eighty-nine kopecks) to the fourth
applicant, RUR 5,883.43 (five thousand eight hundred and eighty-three roubles
and forty-three kopecks) to the fifth applicant and RUR 3,626.24 (three thousand
six hundred and twenty-six roubles and twenty-four kopecks) to the sixth
applicant in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 20 (twenty euros) to
each of the applicants in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into
the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement;
(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;
5. Holds
