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 29.09.2005 ДЕЛО РЕЙНБАХ (REYNBAKH) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад


                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                      CASE OF REYNBAKH v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 23405/03)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 29.IX.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 Reynbakh v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mr P. Lorenzen,
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mr K. Hajiyev,
       Mr D. Spielmann,
       Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 8 September 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
   
                               PROCEDURE
   
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 23405/03) 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,  Mr  Sergey
   Sergeyevich Reynbakh, on 1 March 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  25  June  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
                                   
                     The circumstances of the case
   
       4.  The  applicant  was born in 1946 and  lives  in  the  Sakha
   (Yakutia) Republic of the Russian Federation.
   
        1. Proceedings against the applicant's former employer
   
       5.  On  11 January and 14 December 1999 the Yakutsk Town  Court
   granted  the  applicant's claims against  his  former  employer,  a
   public  company "Sakhaavialinii" (ОАО Авиакомпания "Сахаавиалинии",
   "the  company"),  and  ordered payment of wage  arrears  and  court
   fees.
       6.  It appears that the judgments could not be enforced as  the
   company  went  bankrupt. In July 2000 the court bailiffs  forwarded
   the writs of execution to the company's receiver.
       7.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued the receiver.  He
   claimed  that  the  amounts  outstanding  should  be  adjusted  for
   inflation.
       8. On 17 January 2003 the Neryungri Town Court discontinued the
   proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed  to  appear
   at  the  hearings of 27 December 2002 and 17 January 2003,  despite
   having  been  duly notified thereof. The applicant did  not  appeal
   against that decision.
       9.  In  March 2004 the applicant for the second time  sued  the
   company's receiver, asking to increase the amounts to take  account
   of the inflation.
       10.  On  5 May 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed his  claim
   because  the  company had been declared bankrupt in  2003  and  had
   ceased  to  exist. On 30 June 2004 the Supreme Court of  the  Sakha
   (Yakutia) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.
   
                  2. Proceedings for the enforcement
                      of a State promissory note
   
       11.  The  applicant brought a civil action against the  Russian
   Government.  He  sought to enforce a State-issued  promissory  note
   for  the  purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary
   value thereof.
       12.  On  6  June  2000 the Basmanniy District Court  of  Moscow
   granted  the  applicant's  action and awarded  him  63,000  Russian
   roubles  ("RUR", EUR 2,360). The judgment was not appealed  against
   and it became final and enforceable.
       13. The applicant was issued with a writ of execution which  he
   submitted  to  the  court bailiffs' service. On  26  April  2001  a
   bailiff  of  the 2nd Interdistrict Court Bailiffs' Service  of  the
   Central  Administrative District of Moscow refused  to  accept  the
   writ  because  the  law  on  budget  for  the  year  2001  and  the
   implementing  Government regulation, introduced in  December  2000,
   established  that writs against the Treasury were to  be  submitted
   directly to the Federal Treasury.
       14.  On  13  August  2001  the  applicant  sued  the  Neryungri
   Department  of  the  Federal Treasury seeking  enforcement  of  the
   judgment  of  6 June 2000 and adjustment of the judgment  debt  for
   inflation.  His  claim was dismissed in the  final  instance  on  5
   December 2001 by the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic as  having
   no grounds in the domestic law.
       15.  On 24 October 2001 the applicant also complained about the
   allegedly unlawful decision of the Moscow bailiff's service to  the
   Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. On 24 December 2002 the  Moscow
   City  Court  dismissed  the  applicant's  complaint  in  the  final
   instance.  It  found  that  the bailiff  had  acted  lawfully.  The
   applicant received a copy of the judgment on 19 July 2003.
       16. The judgment of 6 June 2000 remains unenforced to date.
   
                                THE LAW
   
             I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the
              Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
   
       17. The applicant complained that the continued non-enforcement
   of  the judgments of 11 January and 14 December 1999 and that of  6
   June  2000  violated  his right of access to a court  enshrined  in
   Article 6 of the Convention and his right to peaceful enjoyment  of
   possessions  guaranteed  by  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
   
              1. Non-enforcement of the judgments against
                    the applicant's former employer
   
       18.  The  Court recalls that, according to Article  34  of  the
   Convention,  it  can  only  deal  with  applications   alleging   a
   violation  of  the rights guaranteed by the Convention  claimed  to
   have  been committed by State bodies. The Court has no jurisdiction
   to  consider  applications directed against private individuals  or
   businesses  (see,  among other authorities, {Ciprova}  <*>  v.  the
   Czech  Republic  (dec.), No. 33273/03, 22 March 2005;  {Mihailescu}
   v.  Romania  (dec.),  No.  47748/99, 26 August  2003;  Sanglier  v.
   France,  No.  50342/99, з 39, 27 May 2003). Turning to the  instant
   case,  the  Court notes that the debtor was a public  company.  The
   company  was  not owned by the State, did not exercise  any  public
   functions  and  the  State does not appear to  have  had  effective
   control  of  it. The Court observes that the judgments against  the
   company  could not be enforced due to the company's lack  of  funds
   and  its  subsequent bankruptcy. There is nothing to indicate  that
   the  State may be responsible for the continued non-enforcement  of
   the judgments.
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       19.   It   follows  that  this  part  of  the  application   is
   incompatible   ratione  personae  with  the   provisions   of   the
   Convention  within  the meaning of Article  35  з  3  and  must  be
   rejected in accordance with Article 35 з 4.
   
        2. Non-enforcement of the judgment against the Treasury
   
       20.  The Court notes that this part of 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 claimed that the applicant failed to submit
   the  writ  of  execution and the original promissory notes  to  the
   federal  treasury. According to the domestic law, judgments  remain
   enforceable  for  three  years.  After  the  three-year  time-limit
   expired, the judgment of 6 June 2000 was no longer enforceable.
       22. The applicant responded that the requirement was introduced
   in  December 2000 and that the bailiffs had had sufficient time  to
   ensure  enforcement before that date. He maintained that  he  could
   not  submit  the original promissory notes to the federal  treasury
   because  they  were  kept  with the  case  file  at  the  Basmanniy
   District Court of Moscow. It was not before December 2003 that  the
   court  returned  the  documents. By that time  the  time-limit  for
   enforcement had already expired.
       23.  The  Court  observes  that on 6 June  2000  the  applicant
   obtained  a  judgment in his favour against the  federal  treasury,
   which has not been enforced to date. A competent State agency,  the
   bailiffs'  service, was promptly served with the writ of execution.
   The  Government did not explain why the bailiffs had taken no steps
   to  enforce  the  judgment within the two-month enforcement  period
   established in the domestic law. It is true that the applicant  did
   not  resubmit the writ of execution to a different authority  after
   the  changes  in the domestic law had been introduced  in  December
   2000.  However,  the Court considers that it is  incumbent  on  the
   State  to organise its legal system in such a way that ensures  co-
   ordination   between  various  enforcement  agencies  and   secures
   honouring  of the State's judgment debts in good time, irrespective
   of  changes  in  the  domestic law. It would  impose  an  excessive
   burden on the applicant if he were to follow every such change  and
   forward  the writ of execution from one competent State  agency  to
   another.
       24.  In  any event, the Court reiterates that a person who  has
   obtained  an enforceable judgment against the State as a result  of
   successful  litigation cannot be required to resort to  enforcement
   proceedings  in order to have it executed (see Koltsov  v.  Russia,
   No.  41304/02,  з 16, 24 February 2005; Petrushko  v.  Russia,  No.
   36494/02,  з  18,  24  February 2005; and Metaxas  v.  Greece,  No.
   8415/02,  з 19, 27 May 2004). The State authorities were  aware  of
   the  applicant's  claims,  and, as soon  as  the  judgment  in  the
   applicant's  favour  became enforceable, it was  incumbent  on  the
   State to comply with it.
       25.  The  respondent Government did not provide any explanation
   as  to  why  the judgment in the applicant's favour  has  not  been
   enforced.  It  does  not appear that the bailiffs  or  the  federal
   treasury  have taken any measures to comply with the  judgment.  In
   fact,  the judgment has remained without enforcement to date,  that
   is for more than five years since it was issued.
       26. 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; Petrushko  v.
   Russia,  cited  above,  з  23 et seq.;  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).
       27.  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  him  from  receiving  the  money  he  could
   reasonably have expected to receive.
       28.  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
   
       29.  The  applicant complains under Article 6 about  unfairness
   and  excessive length of the proceedings leading up to the judgment
   of  the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic of 5 December 2001  and
   of  those that culminated in the judgment of the Moscow City  Court
   of 24 December 2002.
       30.  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
   
       31. 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
   
       32.  As  regards  the pecuniary damage, the  applicant  claimed
   105,531  Russian roubles (RUR), which represents the principal  due
   to  him under the judgment of 6 June 2000 adjusted by the inflation
   coefficient  of  167,51%.  He  submits  that  this  sum  would  not
   entirely  compensate the damage because the value of  the  Russian-
   made  car  is now RUR 240,000. As to the non-pecuniary damage,  the
   applicant  leaves the determination of the amount  to  the  Court's
   discretion.
       33.  The  Government considered that the finding of a violation
   would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
       34.  The  Court  reiterates 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  in  which
   he  would  have  been had the requirements of Article  6  not  been
   disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment  of  26
   October  1984, Series A No. 85, p. 16, з 12; and, mutatis mutandis,
   {Gencel}  v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, з 27, 23 October 2003).  Turning
   to  the instant case, the Court observes that the three-year  time-
   limit for enforcement has expired. Accordingly, the enforcement  of
   the  judgment of 6 June 2000 is no longer possible. This  indicates
   the  existence of a causal link between the violation found and the
   alleged  pecuniary  damage. However, the applicant  was  awarded  a
   fixed  sum  of  money.  The Court does not discern  a  causal  link
   between  the  violation  found and the applicant's  claim  for  the
   payment of the current value of the Russian-made car.
       35. The Court further notes that in the present case it found a
   violation  of  Article 6 з 1 of the Convention  and  Article  1  of
   Protocol No. 1 in that the award in the applicant's favour had  not
   been  paid  to him. In this connection the Court recalls  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, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova
   v.  Russia,  cited above, з 28; Metaxas v. Greece, cited  above,  з
   36).  The applicant submitted a certificate of the Neryungri  State
   Department  of Statistics showing that the inflation  rate  in  the
   reference  period  was  167,51%.  Taking  into  account  that   the
   Government  did not dispute the method of calculation  employed  by
   the  applicant, the Court accepts the applicant's claim in  respect
   of  the  pecuniary  damage and awards him the sum  of  RUR  105,531
   under  this  head,  plus  any tax that may be  chargeable  on  that
   amount.
       36. The Court also accepts that the applicant suffered distress
   because of the State authorities' failure to enforce a judgment  in
   his  favour. The Court takes into account the amount and nature  of
   the  award  in  the instant case, a long period of the authorities'
   inactivity,  and the fact that the judgment has not been  enforced.
   Making  its  assessment  on  an  equitable  basis,  it  awards  the
   applicant  EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,  plus  any
   tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
   
                         B. Costs and expenses
   
       37.  The  applicant asked for reimbursement of his legal  fees.
   However,  he  did  not specify the amount, nor did  he  submit  any
   receipts or other vouchers on the basis of which such amount  could
   be  established.  Accordingly, the Court does not  make  any  award
   under this head.
   
                          C. Default interest
   
       38.  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  6  June  2000 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:
       (i)  RUR  105,531 (one hundred and five thousand  five  hundred
   thirty-one Russian roubles) in respect of the pecuniary damage;
       (ii) EUR 2,500 (two thousand and five hundred euros) in respect
   of  non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian  roubles  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;
       4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim  for  just
   satisfaction.
   
       Done  in English, and notified in writing on 29 September 2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
   
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                             President
                                                                      
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN
                                                             Registrar
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости


Реклама

Новости сайта Тюрьма


Hosted by uCoz