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 13.10.2005 ДЕЛО ГЕРАСИМОВА (GERASIMOVA) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад


                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                     CASE OF GERASIMOVA v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 24669/02)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                        (Strasbourg, 13.X.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 Gerasimova v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       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,
       Mrs E. Steiner,
       Mr K. Hajiyev,
       Mr D. Spielmann, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 22 September 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
                                   
                               PROCEDURE
                                   
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 24669/02) 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  Galina
   Petrovna Gerasimova ("the applicant"), on 20 May 2002.
       2.  The  Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
   by  their  Agent, Mr Pavel Laptev, Representative  of  the  Russian
   Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  The  applicant alleged that the judgment of the  Commercial
   Court  of  the  Samara  Region of 4 September  1995  had  not  been
   executed by the State.
       4.  The  application was allocated to the First Section of  the
   Court  (Rule  52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within  that  Section,
   the  Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з  1  of  the
   Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
       5.  By  a  partial  decision  of 13 November  2003,  the  Court
   declared  the application partly inadmissible and communicated  the
   complaint  concerning the failure to execute the  judgment  of  the
   Commercial  Court of the Samara Region of 4 September 1995  to  the
   respondent  Government.  By a decision of 16  September  2004,  the
   Court declared the remainder of the application admissible.
       6.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its
   Sections  (Rule  25  з  1). This case was  assigned  to  the  newly
   composed First Section (Rule 52 з 1).
       7.  The applicant and the Government each filed observations on
   the  merits  (Rule  59  з  1). The Chamber  having  decided,  after
   consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was  required
   (Rule  59  з  3  in fine), the parties replied in writing  to  each
   other's observations.
                                   
                               THE FACTS
                                   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
                                   
       8.  The  applicant  was born in 1953 and lives  in  Chapayevsk,
   Samara Region.
       9.  On  4  September 1995 the Commercial Court  of  the  Samara
   Region  (Арбитражный суд Самарской области) granted a claim by  the
   applicant's employer - a private company - for recovery of  damages
   against   the   Chapayevsk  Social  Security  Service   (Управление
   социальной защиты населения администрации г. Чапаевска).
       10.  On 15 August 1997 the applicant's employer assigned her  a
   part  of the judgment debt in the amount of RUR 114,000,000 towards
   salary due <*>. The applicant applied to the Chapayevsk Town  Court
   of the Samara Region for execution of the judgment on 29 May 1998.
   -------------------------------
       <*>  The  amount is indicated without regard to the revaluation
   of  1998.  In  accordance  with  the Presidential  Decree  "On  the
   Modification  of the Face Value of Russian Currency  and  Standards
   of  Value"  of  4 August 1997, 1,000 "old" roubles became  1  "new"
   rouble as of 1 January 1998.
   
       11.  It appears that by 2001 only the amount of RUR 16,000  <*>
   has  been  paid  to  the applicant. As the judgment  had  not  been
   executed  in  full, in 2001 she filed a claim with  the  Chapayevsk
   Town  Court  of  the  Samara Region against the  Chapayevsk  Social
   Security Service for recovery of the sum with interest.
   -------------------------------
       <*>  The amount is indicated with regard to the revaluation  of
   1998. It thus corresponded to 16,000,000 "old" roubles.
   
       12.  The  Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region  dismissed
   the  claim  on  5 April 2001 on the ground that the  applicant  had
   failed  to  substantiate  her calculation  of  the  amount  of  the
   interest.  On  19  September  2001  the  Presidium  of  the  Samara
   Regional  Court,  following an application for  supervisory  review
   lodged  by the President of the Samara Regional Court, quashed  the
   judgment  of  5  April  2001 and remitted  the  case  for  a  fresh
   examination.
       13.  On  21  June 2002 the Chapayevsk Town Court of the  Samara
   Region  dismissed  the claim and indicated that  the  execution  of
   judgment  by  the  Chapayevsk  Social  Security  Service  had  been
   carried out according to the sums allocated from the budget.  Thus,
   in  2000 the budget estimate provided for RUR 16,000 to be paid  in
   instalments  during that year. The estimate for 2001  provided  for
   RUR  5,000 to be paid to the applicant, and the estimate  for  2002
   provided  for RUR 12,000, out of which RUR 5,000 was  paid  to  the
   applicant as of 1 June 2002. The outstanding debt remained  at  RUR
   87,445.
       It is not clear whether any further payments have been made.
                                   
                                THE LAW
                                   
          I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
                    and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
                                   
       14.  The  applicant  complained under Article  6  з  1  of  the
   Convention  and  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  that  the  State  had
   failed  to  execute  fully  and in due time  the  judgment  of  the
   Commercial Court of the Samara Region of 4 September 1995.
       Article  6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant,  reads  as
   follows:
       "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 to the Convention reads as follows:
       "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."
       15.  The  Government, in their additional  observations  of  12
   January 2005 following the Court's decision on admissibility of  16
   September 2004, insisted that the Russian Federation could  not  be
   held  responsible  for  non-execution of the judgment  against  the
   Chapayevsk  Social  Security  Service  as  this  was  a   municipal
   institution  and not a State organisation. They further  reiterated
   that  the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as  she
   had  not  applied to the bailiffs' service for enforcement  of  the
   judgment. The Government furnished statistical data concerning  the
   efficiency of the bailiffs' service in the Russian Federation  and,
   in  particular,  in Chapayevsk in 1998 and 1999.  In  this  respect
   they  also  submitted  that  the  present  case  was  substantially
   different  from  the case of Burdov v. Russia (No.  59498/00,  ECHR
   2002-III),  since the judgment in question did not concern  payment
   of  social  benefits.  The Government made no  submissions  on  the
   merits of the case.
       16.  The  applicant  contended that  she  had  applied  to  the
   bailiffs'  service  in due course and that the  Russian  Federation
   was responsible for non-execution of the judgment.
       17.  The  Court observes that it has examined and rejected  the
   Government's  objections in its decision  on  admissibility  of  16
   September  2004.  The Government did not make any  new  submissions
   that  would  warrant  a fresh examination of the  same  issues.  In
   particular,  the  general statistics concerning the  efficiency  of
   the  bailiffs'  service in 1998 and 1999 is not  relevant  for  the
   case  at hand since in the aforementioned decision the Court  found
   that the execution of the judgment was prevented by the failure  to
   make  adequate  budgetary  provisions  by  appropriate  legislative
   measures,  over  which  the bailiffs could not  possibly  have  any
   control.  The  Court further observes that nothing  in  the  Burdov
   case  suggests  that the application of principles  concerning  the
   execution  of a final judgment established in the Court's  case-law
   (see,  among others, Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March  1997,
   Reports  of  Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p.  510,  з  40,  and
   Immobiliare  Saffi v. Italy [GC], No. 22774/93, з 74, ECHR  1999-V)
   is  limited to instances related to payment of social benefits.  In
   any  event, the Court reiterates that, according to Rule 55 of  the
   Rules  of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by  the
   respondent  Contracting Party in its written or  oral  observations
   on  the  admissibility of the application rather  than  during  the
   procedure  on  the  merits  (see K. and T.  v.  Finland  [GC],  No.
   25702/94,  з  145,  ECHR  2001-VII, and N.C.  v.  Italy  [GC],  No.
   24952/94,  з  44,  ECHR  2002-X). The Government's  objection  must
   therefore be dismissed.
       18. Turning to the merits of the case, the Court notes that  on
   15   August  1997,  pursuant  to  the  assignment  of  claims,  the
   applicant became a creditor in the amount of RUR 114,000,000  under
   the  final judgment of 4 September 1995 of the Commercial Court  of
   Samara  Region against the Chapayevsk Social Security  Service.  On
   21  June 2002, when the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara  Region
   dismissed  the applicant's claim for recovery of the sum under  the
   judgment  with  interest  due to the failure  to  execute  it,  the
   outstanding  amount  came to RUR 87,445. The judgment  has  not  to
   date been fully executed, which is not in dispute by the parties.
       19.  The  Court further observes that, as is apparent from  the
   judgment  of the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region  of  21
   June  2002,  the  judgment  has  not  been  executed  because   the
   Chapayevsk  Social  Security Service had no cash  funds  since  the
   sums  allocated  to it from the town budget were insufficient.  The
   applicant  was  thus  precluded from receiving  the  judgment  debt
   until   the   local   authority  had  made  appropriate   budgetary
   provisions.  It does not appear, however, that the local  authority
   has  taken adequate measures to comply with the judgment. In  fact,
   the  judgment  has not been fully executed to date,  that  is  more
   than  ten  years since it became enforceable and more  than  eights
   years  since the applicant acquired rights under the judgment.  The
   Government did not offer any justification for that omission.
       20. 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 Burdov,  cited
   above,  з 34 et seq.; Wasserman v. Russia, No. 15021/02,  з  35  et
   seq.,  18  November 2004; and Poznakhirina v. Russia, No. 25964/02,
   з 22 et seq., 24 February 2005).
       21.  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.
       22.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the
   Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
                                   
            II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
                                   
       23. 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
                                   
       24.  The  applicant claimed USD 638,000 in respect of pecuniary
   damage,  of which USD 40,000 was for the principal amounts  awarded
   by  the judgment of the Commercial Court of the Samara Region of  4
   September  1995  and  also by a judgment of  2  October  1996.  The
   outstanding  part of the amount claimed related to  alleged  damage
   to  the applicant's property caused by State authorities, the  poor
   state  of  the  environment the applicant had to live  in,  a  fine
   allegedly imposed on her in 1994 - 1995 and items allegedly  seized
   in  the  course  of searches of the applicant's flat  conducted  in
   1999  - 2001. The applicant further submitted that she had suffered
   non-pecuniary  damage  as a result of the authorities'  failure  to
   execute  the  judgment of 4 September 1995 and also  a  failure  to
   execute  the  judgment of 2 October 1996 in full in due  time,  but
   did not specify her claims in that respect.
       25.  The  Government  submitted  that  the  applicant's  claims
   relating  to the failure to execute the judgment of the  Commercial
   Court  of the Samara Region of 4 September 1995 were excessive  and
   unsubstantiated. They considered the rest of the claims,  including
   those   relating   to  the  complaints  that  the  Court   declared
   inadmissible  by  the  partial  decision  on  admissibility  of  13
   November  2003,  to  be irrelevant. In the Government's  view,  the
   finding of a violation would constitute sufficient compensation  in
   the present case.
       26. The Court notes that the State's outstanding obligation  to
   enforce  the judgment of the Commercial Court of the Samara  Region
   of  4  September 1995 is not in dispute. Accordingly, the applicant
   is  still entitled to recover the principal amount of the  debt  in
   the  course  of  domestic proceedings. The Court recalls  that  the
   most  appropriate  form of redress in respect  of  a  violation  of
   Article  6  is to ensure that the applicant as far as  possible  is
   put  in the position he would have been in had the requirements  of
   Article  6 not been disregarded (see Makarova and Others v. Russia,
   No.  7023/03,  з 47, 24 February 2005 and Poznakhirina  v.  Russia,
   No.  25964/02, з 33, 24 February 2005). The Court finds that in the
   present  case  the  same principle applies, having  regard  to  the
   violations  found.  It  therefore  considers  that  the  Government
   should  secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the  award
   made  by  the domestic courts. For this reason the Court  does  not
   find  it necessary to make an award for pecuniary damage in so  far
   as it relates to the principal amount.
       27.  As  regards  the remainder of the applicant's  claims  for
   pecuniary  damage, the Court notes, firstly, that  by  the  partial
   decision  on  admissibility of 13 November  2003  it  declared  the
   applicant's  complaints concerning the alleged failure  to  execute
   the  judgment  of the Commercial Court of the Samara  Region  of  2
   October  1996  and the search of the applicant's flat inadmissible.
   The  other  claims  made by the applicant  do  not  relate  to  the
   subject  of the present proceedings. Accordingly, the Court rejects
   the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage.
       28.  On  the  other hand, the Court accepts that the  applicant
   suffered  distress  because of the State  authorities'  failure  to
   enforce  the  judgment at issue. The Court takes into  account  the
   amount  and  nature  of  the  award,  the  lengthy  period  of  the
   authorities'  inactivity and the fact that  the  judgment  has  not
   been  fully enforced. Making its assessment on an equitable  basis,
   it  awards  the  applicant  EUR 2,400 in respect  of  non-pecuniary
   damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
                                   
                         B. Costs and expenses
                                   
       29.  The  applicant did not make any claims in respect  of  the
   costs  and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and  before
   the Court.
       30. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under this head.
                                   
                          C. Default interest
                                   
       31.  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.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6  of  the
   Convention;
       2.  Holds  that  there has been a violation  of  Article  1  of
   Protocol No. 1;
       3. Holds
       (a)  that  the respondent State, within three months  from  the
   date  on  which  the  judgment becomes  final  in  accordance  with
   Article  44  з  2  of the Convention, shall secure, by  appropriate
   means,  the enforcement of the awards made by the domestic  courts,
   and  in  addition  pay the applicant EUR 2,400 (two  thousand  four
   hundred  euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
   into  the  national currency of the respondent State  at  the  rate
   applicable  at  the date of settlement, plus any tax  that  may  be
   chargeable;
       (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;
       4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim  for  just
   satisfaction.
   
       Done  in  English, and notified in writing on 13 October  2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
   
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                             President
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN
                                                             Registrar
   
   
   
   
   
       In accordance with Article 45 з 2 of the Convention and Rule 74
   з  2 of the Rules of Court, the concurring opinion of Mr Kovler  is
   annexed to this judgment.
   
                                                                C.L.R.
                                                                      
                                                                  S.N.
                                   
                  CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER
                                   
       Whereas I concur with the Chamber's finding that there has been
   a  violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of a lengthy
   non-enforcement  of  a judicial decision in the applicant's  favour
   and, as a consequence, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.  1,
   I  would  like to discuss in more detail the Government's objection
   to  the  admissibility of the application founded  on  the  premise
   that  self-government (municipal) bodies do not form  part  of  the
   system  of  State  bodies by virtue of Article 12  of  the  Russian
   Constitution  (see paragraph 15 of the judgment) and, consequently,
   the  State is not responsible for the acts of the Chapayevsk Social
   Security Service.
       1.  As  the  national judge, I bear witness to many discussions
   about  Article  12  of  the Constitution and,  especially,  of  its
   provision  that "local self-government bodies shall not  form  part
   of  the  system of State bodies". Contradictory interpretations  of
   that  provision were given in the light of Article 132 з 2  of  the
   Constitution  which  conferred public-law functions  on  the  local
   self-government  bodies:  "Local  self-government  bodies  may   be
   vested  by law with certain State functions and accordingly receive
   material  and  financial resources which are  necessary  for  their
   implementation. The implementation of the State functions shall  be
   controlled by the State".
       It  is  understood that the Chapayevsk Social Security  Service
   exercised  precisely  public-law functions,  including  the  social
   protection  of the population, even though emoluments were  payable
   from the local rather than federal budget.
       2.  The  protection  of  social rights  of  individuals  is  an
   integral  part  of the general system for the protection  of  human
   rights  which, under the Russian Constitution, is either under  the
   exclusive jurisdiction of the federation (Article 71) or under  the
   joint  jurisdiction of the federation and its constituent  entities
   (Article  72),  but  never,  and I emphasise  -  never,  under  the
   exclusive jurisdiction of a constituent entity.
       If  it  were otherwise, the State would not be responsible  for
   ensuring  effective respect for many individual  rights,  including
   those  enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Obviously, such  a
   construction  would be contrary to Article 1 of the Convention  and
   to  the  "ordinary meaning" of the term "jurisdiction".  Explaining
   the  meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, the Court  noted  that
   it  "makes  no  distinction  as to the  type  of  rule  or  measure
   concerned,  and  does not exclude any part of  the  member  States'
   "jurisdiction"  from  scrutiny under the Convention"  (Matthews  v.
   the United Kingdom [GC], No. 24833/94, з 29, ECHR 1999-I).
       I  will  not speculate about a possible breach of the "vertical
   of  power".  If  the term "jurisdiction" is to  be  linked  to  the
   concept  of  "responsibility", the argument that  a  State  is  not
   responsible for the acts (failures to act) of the agencies  located
   within  its  territory,  even if those are municipal  agencies,  is
   unsustainable.  Indeed, as the Court noted  on  many  occasions,  a
   State  is  not responsible for the obligations of "third  parties",
   such  as  private  individuals,  companies  or  banks  (see,  among
   others,  Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), No. 48757/99, 18  June  2002).
   However,  it  is  highly  unlikely that  the  Court  would  include
   municipal  bodies in that category of "third persons", even  having
   regard to the respondent State's margin of appreciation.
       Once the Court rejected the argument by a State that denied its
   responsibility   for   the   acts  of  the   independent   judicial
   authorities: "In all cases before the Court, what is  in  issue  is
   the   international  responsibility  of  the  State"  (Lukanov   v.
   Bulgaria,  judgment  of  20 March 1997, Reports  of  Judgments  and
   Decisions 1997-II, з 40).
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости


Реклама

Новости сайта Тюрьма


Hosted by uCoz