Право
Навигация

 

Реклама




 

 

Ресурсы в тему

 

Реклама

Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси

 

СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости

 

Рейтинг@Mail.ru


Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)

 

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 17.11.2005 ДЕЛО БРАТЧИКОВА (BRATCHIKOVA) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад

                                
                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                     CASE OF BRATCHIKOVA v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 66462/01)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 17.XI.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 Bratchikova v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mr L. Loucaides,
       Mr P. Lorenzen,
       Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mr K. Hajiyev, 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. 66462/01) 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  Lyubov
   Dmitriyevna Bratchikova, on 18 August 2000.
       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  7  October  2003 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
                                   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
                                   
       4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Voronezh.
       5.  The  applicant receives welfare payments for her child.  In
   2000   she  brought  civil  proceedings  against  a  local  welfare
   authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1997 - 2000.
       6.  On  28  January 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court  of
   Voronezh  awarded  the  applicant 6,882.59 Russian  roubles  (RUR).
   This judgment entered into force on 8 February 2000.
       7. On 6 March 2000 the writ of execution was issued and sent to
   the bailiffs.
       8.  On  4  November 2000, in reply to the applicant's complaint
   about  the bailiffs' failure to enforce the judgment in her favour,
   the  Department  of  Justice of the Voronezh  Region  informed  the
   applicant  that  her  award  would be  enforced  in  the  order  of
   priority set out by the Federal Law on Enforcement Procedure.
       9.  On  26  July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement
   proceedings  in  respect of the judgment of  28  January  2000  and
   returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor  had
   insufficient funds.
       10.  In  January  - February 2004 the applicant  was  paid  the
   amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
                                   
                       II. Relevant domestic law
                                   
       11. 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.
       12.  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 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
                                   
       13.  The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement
   of  the  judgment of 28 January 2000. The Court will  examine  this
   complaint  under Article 6 з 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 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
                                   
       14.  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 applicant 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
   judgment   in  the  applicant's  favour  had  been  enforced,   the
   Government  invited  the Court to strike out  the  application,  in
   accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
       15. The applicant disagreed with the Government's arguments and
   maintained  her  complaints.  As regards  the  friendly  settlement
   proposal,  she claimed that the authorities of the Voronezh  Region
   had  never  made any offers to her, and only negotiated  once  with
   her minor daughter.
       16. 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 з 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, з 76, ECHR 2003-...).
       17. On the facts, the Court observes that the Government failed
   to  submit  with the Court any formal statement capable of  falling
   into  the  latter  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, зз 23 - 24, ECHR 2001-VI).
       18.  As regards the Government's argument that the judgment  in
   question  has already been enforced, the Court considers  that  the
   mere  fact that the authorities complied with the judgment after  a
   substantial  delay cannot be viewed in this case  as  automatically
   depriving  the applicant of her victim status under the Convention.
   (see,  e.g.,  Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, з 16, 24  February
   2005).
       19. 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.
       20. The Court notes that the application 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
                                   
       21.  The Government advanced no arguments on the merits of  the
   application.
       22. The applicant maintained her complaint.
       23.  The  Court observes that the judgment of 28  January  2000
   remained  inoperative for four years. No justification was advanced
   by the Government for this delay.
       24. 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,  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).
       25.  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  judgment  in  the  applicant's  favour  the   domestic
   authorities  prevented  her  from receiving  the  money  she  could
   reasonably have expected to receive.
       26. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з 1  of
   the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
                                   
            II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
                                   
       27. 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
                                   
       28. The applicant claimed compensation of non-pecuniary damage,
   having  failed  to  specify the amount. The  Government  considered
   that  should the Court find a violation in this case that would  in
   itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
       29.  The Court would not exclude that the applicant might  have
   suffered   distress  and  frustration  resulting  from  the   State
   authorities'  failure  to  enforce  the  judgment  in  her  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   applicant  (see,  in  a   similar   context,
   Poznakhirina, cited above, з 35).
                                   
                         B. Costs and expenses
                                   
       30.  The applicant did not claim reimbursement of her costs and
   expenses  incurred before the domestic authorities and  the  Court.
   Accordingly,  the Court considers that there is no  call  to  award
   her any sum on that account.
                                   
               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 the finding of a violation constitutes in itself
   sufficient   just   satisfaction  for  any   non-pecuniary   damage
   sustained by the applicant.
   
       Done  in English, and notified in writing on 17 November  2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
   
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                             President
                                                                      
                                                      Santiago QUESADA
                                                      Deputy Registrar
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости


Реклама

Новости сайта Тюрьма


Hosted by uCoz