EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ZAUGOLNOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 1144/03)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 15.XII.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set
out in Article 44 з 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Zaugolnova 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. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 1144/03) 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 a Russian national, Ms Nina
Stefanovna Zaugolnova, on 2 December 2002.
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 4 October 2004 the Court decided to communicate the
application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29
з 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Neryungri.
5. On 10 April 2002 the Nyuringri Town Court granted the
applicant's civil action against the Neryungri Town police
department and awarded her 16,683.23 Russian roubles ("RUR"). On 5
June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic
upheld the judgment on appeal. On the same day the judgment became
final and enforceable.
6. On 3 December 2002 the Nyuringri Town Court issued a writ of
execution.
7. On 16 July 2003 the applicant submitted the writ of
execution to the Neryungri Town police department.
8. On 8 December 2004 the Neryungri Town Administration
transferred RUR 16,683.23 to the applicant's account.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
9. The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the
judgment of 10 April 2002, as upheld on 5 June 2002. The Court
considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 6
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant
parts of these provisions read as follows:
Article 6 з 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
10. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
11. The Government submitted that on 8 December 2004 the
judgment debt had been paid. The judgment of 10 April 2002, as
upheld on 5 June 2002, had thus been enforced.
12. The applicant maintained her complaints.
13. The Court observes that on 10 April 2002 the applicant
obtained a judgment in her favour against a local police
department. On 5 June 2002 the judgment became enforceable.
However, it remained unenforced until 8 December 2004, that is for
more than two years and five months. It does not appear that the
authorities had taken any effort to pay the judgment debt during
that period. The Government did not offer any justification for
their failure to act.
14. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 з 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising
issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Gizzatova v.
Russia, No. 5124/03, з 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Wasserman v.
Russia, No. 15021/02, з 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v.
Russia, No. 59498/00, з 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
15. 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 comply with the
enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic
authorities prevented her from receiving the money she could
reasonably have expected to receive.
16. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
17. The Court has examined the complaints as submitted by the
applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its
possession, it finds that these complaints do 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 must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 зз 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
18. 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
19. The applicant claimed RUR 3,000,000 in respect of
compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
20. The Government did not comment.
21. The Court accepts that the applicant has suffered distress
because of the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment
in her favour within a reasonable time. However, the amount
claimed appears excessive. The Court takes into account the amount
of the award in the instant case and the fact that the judgment
has been enforced. Making its assessment on an equitable basis,
the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-
pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
22. The applicant claimed reimbursement of her legal fees,
without specifying the amount. She submitted documents relating to
postal and copying expenses.
23. The Government did not comment.
24. 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 documents in its possession and the above
criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of
EUR 50, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
25. 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 complaint concerning non-enforcement of the
judgment of 10 April 2002, as upheld on 5 June 2002, admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. 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 з 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred euros) in respect
of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 50 (fifty 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 December 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} <*> NIELSEN
Registrar
--------------------------------
<*> Слово на национальном языке набрано латинским шрифтом и
выделено фигурными скобками.
|
