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 29.06.2006 ДЕЛО ВАСИЛЬЕВА И ДРУГИЕ (VASILYEVA AND OTHERS) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад

                                
                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                CASE OF VASILYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
                       (Application No. 8011/02)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 29.VI.2006)
                                   
   --------------------------------
       <*>  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 Vasilyeva and Others v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mr L. Loucaides,
       Mrs F. Tulkens,
       Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mr D. Spielmann,
       Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 8 June 2006,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
   
                               PROCEDURE
                                   
       1.  The case originated in an application (No. 8011/02) 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 seven Russian nationals, Mrs  Mariya
   Petrovna  Vasilyeva, Mrs Mariya Andreevna Kovalenko,  Mr  Aleksandr
   Ivanovich  Kovalenko,  Mr  Nikolay Ivanovich  Kovalenko,  Mrs  Anna
   Vasiliyevna  Terekhova, Mr Vyacheslav Dmitriyevich  Kotov  and  Mrs
   Polupanova  Evdokiya  Fateyevna ("the  applicants"),  on  27  March
   2001.
       2.  As of 17 January 2002 the application on behalf of the late
   Mrs  A.V.  Terekhova  has  been pursued  by  her  son,  Mr  Mikhail
   Gavrilovich  Terekhov.  As of 9 February 2004  the  application  on
   behalf of the late Mrs M.P. Vasilyeva has been pursued by Mrs  A.A.
   Kosolapova.  As of 11 February 2004 the application  on  behalf  of
   the  late  Mr  A.I. Kovalenko has been pursued by  his  brother  Mr
   Nikolay Ivanovich Kovalenko.
       3.  The applicants were represented by Ms S.A. Poznakhirina,  a
   lawyer   practising  in  the  town  of  Novovoronezh.  The  Russian
   Government  ("the Government") were represented by  Mr  P.  Laptev,
   Representative of the Russian Federation at the European  Court  of
   Human Rights.
       4.  On  19  November 2003 the Court decided to communicate  the
   application.
       5. 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
   
       6.  The  first five applicants were born in 1910,  1935,  1939,
   1912  and  1940  respectively. The sixth and the seventh  applicant
   were  born  on  unspecified dates. At the  relevant  time  all  the
   applicants lived in the town of Voronezh.
       7. The applicants were entitled to pecuniary awards against the
   State in connection with the late payment of their pensions.
       8.  By  judgment of 7 August 2000 of the Novovoronezhskiy  Town
   Court   of  the  Voronezh  Region  ("the  Town  Court")  the  first
   applicant   was   granted   2,117.38   Russian   roubles    ("RUR",
   approximately  84  euros,  "EUR") to be  paid  by  the  State.  The
   judgment came into force on 28 September 2000.
       9.  Having  examined  the claims of the third  and  the  fourth
   applicant,  on  5  September 2000 the Town Court granted  them  RUR
   1,461.78  (approximately  EUR 59) and RUR  2,320.81  (approximately
   EUR  93)  respectively against the State. This judgment  came  into
   force on 15 September 2000.
       10.  On  18  September 2000 the Town Court granted  the  second
   applicant's  claim and awarded her RUR 3,346.63 (approximately  EUR
   140) to be paid by the State.
       11. On 25 September 2000 the fifth applicant was successful  in
   a  claim  before the Town Court against the pension authority.  The
   court  granted  him  RUR  2,318.63  (approximately  EUR  97).   The
   judgment came into force on 4 October 2000.
       12.  The  awards  in  respect  of the  sixth  and  the  seventh
   applicant were made by the Town Court on 18 and 19 September 2000.
       13.  On an unspecified date the applicants applied to bailiffs'
   service, requesting to assist in enforcement of the said awards.
       14. By letter of 30 January 2001 the bailiffs' service returned
   the execution writs without enforcement.
       15.  It  appears that the above judgments were not enforced  at
   least  until 25 May 2004 which is the date on which the  respondent
   Government have filed their observations.
   
                                THE LAW
                                   
                      I. Striking out of the list
   
       16.  On 5 April 2006 the applicants' counsel informed the Court
   that  Mr  Kotov  and  Mrs  Polupanova, the sixth  and  the  seventh
   applicant, had passed away and that their heirs did not  intend  to
   pursue their application before the Court.
       17.  Regard being had to the absence of any heirs who  wish  to
   pursue  the  application on behalf of the  sixth  and  the  seventh
   applicant or any reasons which would require a continuation of  the
   examination  of  the  case  (see, by way  of  contrast,  Karner  v.
   Austria,  judgment  of  24  July 2003,  Reports  of  Judgments  and
   Decisions  2003-IX, з 28), the Court, in so far as their complaints
   are  concerned,  strikes  the  application  out  of  its  list,  in
   accordance with Article 37 з 1 (c) of the Convention.
                                   
       II. Alleged violation of Articles 6 з 1 of the Convention
                        and 1 of Protocol No. 1
                                   
       18. The applicants complained that the authorities' refusal  to
   enforce  the  judgments in their cases violated their "right  to  a
   court"  under  Article 6 з 1 of the Convention and their  right  to
   the  peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed in  Article  1
   of  Protocol No. 1. These Articles in so far as relevant provide 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
                                   
       19.  The Government submitted that between 1995 and 1999  there
   had  been systematic delays in payment of pensions due to a nation-
   wide  economic  crisis. Many pensioners applied to courts  claiming
   compensation  for the delays. In view of the lack  of  legal  norms
   providing  for payment of such compensations and rules on budgetary
   discipline,   respective  court  judgments   were   enforced   with
   considerable  delays, if at all. The Government  acknowledged  that
   delays  in  enforcement  of these judgments  had  taken  place  and
   informed  the Court that the problem had called for an adoption  of
   a  special federal law aimed at combating that problem. At the time
   of  submission of the Government's observations, the draft  law  on
   compensation  for delays in payment of pensions was being  examined
   by the Russian authorities.
       20. The applicants maintained their complaints.
       21. 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
                                   
       22.  The  Court  first notes that the five  judgments  dated  7
   August,  5, 18 and 25 September 2000 respectively remained  without
   enforcement  at  least until 25 May 2004, i.e. for  the  period  of
   more than three years and eight months.
       23.  The  Court has found violations of Article 6 з  1  of  the
   Convention  and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in many  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  v. Russia, No.  36494/02,  24  February
   2005, 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 such substantial periods to comply
   with  the  enforceable  judgments in  the  applicants'  favour  the
   domestic authorities prevented them from receiving the money  which
   they were entitled to receive under final and binding judgments.
       25. There has accordingly been a violation of Articles 6 з 1 of
   the  Convention  and  1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect  of  all  five
   applicants.
                                   
           III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
                                   
       26. 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
                                   
       27.  The applicants requested the enforcement of the respective
   court  judgments and claimed RUR 1,452, RUR 2,295, RUR  1,002,  RUR
   1,591  and  RUR  1,590  (calculated  on  the  basis  on  a  monthly
   statutory  interest  rate  in Russia) respectively  in  respect  of
   pecuniary  damage.  Each  applicant  also  claimed  EUR  10,000  in
   respect of non-pecuniary damage.
       28. The Government contested the amount of non-pecuniary damage
   as excessive.
       29. The Court notes that the State's outstanding obligation  to
   enforce  the  judgments  at issue is not in  dispute.  Accordingly,
   insofar  as  the  judgments have not yet been enforced  (see  з  15
   above),  the applicants are 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  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,  mutatis mutandis,  {Gencel}  v.  Turkey,  No.
   53431/99, з 27, 23 October 2003 and Makarova and Others v.  Russia,
   No.  7023/03, з 37, 24 February 2005). The Court finds that in  the
   present case this principle applies as well, having regard  to  the
   violations found. It therefore considers that the Government  shall
   secure,  by  appropriate means, the enforcement of the awards  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.
       30.  As  the  Government did not dispute  the  calculations  of
   interest  presented by the applicants, and as the  Court  does  not
   find  them  unreasonable, it makes the awards on  that  basis.  The
   Court  awards  the first applicant RUR 1,452, the second  applicant
   RUR  2,295, the third applicant RUR 1,002, the fourth applicant RUR
   1,591  and  the  fifth  applicant RUR  1,590  in  compensation  for
   pecuniary  damage,  plus any tax that may be  chargeable  on  these
   amounts.
       31.  The  Court  also  accepts  that  the  applicants  suffered
   distress  because of the State authorities' failure to enforce  the
   judgments.  However,  the  amounts  claimed  in  respect  of   non-
   pecuniary  damage  appear excessive. The Court takes  into  account
   the  award made in the Burdov v. Russia case (cited above,  з  47),
   such  factors as the applicants' age, personal income,  the  nature
   of  the awards in the present case, i.e. arrears in respect of  the
   increase  of  retirement  pension, the length  of  the  enforcement
   proceedings  and other relevant aspects. Making its  assessment  on
   an  equitable basis, it awards each applicant EUR 2,800 in  respect
   of  non-pecuniary  damage, plus any tax that may be  chargeable  on
   these amounts.
                                   
                         B. Costs and expenses
                                   
       32.  The  applicants did not submit any claims under this  head
   and  the  Court accordingly makes no award in respect of costs  and
   expenses.
                                   
                          C. Default interest
                                   
       33.  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.  Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases,
   in so far as the sixth and the seventh applicant are concerned;
       2. Declares the application admissible;
       3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6  of  the
   Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of  all  five
   applicants;
       4. Holds
       (a)  that  the respondent State, within three months  from  the
   date on which the judgment becomes final according to 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 following amounts:
       -  to  the first applicant RUR 1,452 (one thousand four hundred
   and  fifty-two  roubles)  in respect of pecuniary  damage  and  EUR
   2,800  (two  thousand and eight hundred euros) in respect  of  non-
   pecuniary  damage,  plus any tax that may be  chargeable  on  these
   amounts,
       -  to  the second applicant RUR 2,295 (two thousand two hundred
   and  ninety-five roubles) in respect of pecuniary  damage  and  EUR
   2,800  (two  thousand and eight hundred euros) in respect  of  non-
   pecuniary  damage,  plus any tax that may be  chargeable  on  these
   amounts,
       -  to  the  third  applicant RUR 1,002 (one  thousand  and  two
   roubles)  in  respect  of  pecuniary  damage  and  EUR  2,800  (two
   thousand  and  eight  hundred euros) in  respect  of  non-pecuniary
   damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts;
       -  to the fourth applicant RUR 1,591 (one thousand five hundred
   and  ninety-one  roubles) in respect of pecuniary  damage  and  EUR
   2,800  (two  thousand and eight hundred euros) in respect  of  non-
   pecuniary  damage,  plus any tax that may be  chargeable  on  these
   amounts;
       -  to  the fifth applicant RUR 1,590 (one thousand five hundred
   and  ninety roubles) in respect of pecuniary damage and  EUR  2,800
   (two  thousand and eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
   damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts;
       (b)  that the amounts awarded in euros shall be converted  into
   the   national  currency  of  the  respondent  State  at  the  rate
   applicable at the date of settlement;
       (c)  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.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim  for  just
   satisfaction.
   
       Done  in  English,  and notified in writing on  29  June  2006,
   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