Ресурсы в тему



Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси


СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости



Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)




(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад

                             FIRST SECTION
                       CASE OF GRIDIN v. RUSSIA
                       (Application No. 4171/04)
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                        (Strasbourg, 1.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 Gridin 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,
       Mrs E. Steiner,
       Mr K. Hajiyev, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 11 May 2006,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
       1.  The case originated in an application (No. 4171/04) 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  Vasiliy
   Nikolayevich Gridin, on 9 December 2003.
       2.  The  Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
   by  their  Agent,  Mr  P.  Laptev, Representative  of  the  Russian
   Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  On  15  December 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 1961 and lives in Aleksin in  the
   Tula Region.
       5.  On  11  October 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court  of  Tula
   granted  the applicant's claim against the Tula Regional Department
   of  the  Federal  Employment Service and awarded him  RUR  5,294.69
   (EUR  197).  On  16 April 2002 the Tula Regional Court  upheld  the
   judgment on appeal.
       6.  On  23  May 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court  altered  the
   judgment, indicating that the award was payable by the Ministry  of
   Finance at the expense of the Treasury.
       7.  On  12  February 2003 the Tula Regional Department  of  the
   Ministry  of  Finance  applied  for  supervisory  review   of   the
   judgment.  On 31 August 2004 the Tula Regional Court refused  their
       8.  On 3 December 2004 the Treasury paid the amount outstanding
   to the applicant's bank account.
                                THE LAW
                   I. Alleged violation of Article 6
           of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
       9.  The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement
   of  the  judgment in his favour had violated his right to  a  court
   under  Article  6  з  1  and  his right to  peaceful  enjoyment  of
   possessions  under 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  within  a  reasonable
   time... 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..."
                           A. Admissibility
       10. 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
       11.  The Government submitted that the judgment had been  fully
   enforced  and that a possibility of compensating the applicant  for
   non-pecuniary damage would be examined.
       12. The applicant responded that he had never been informed  of
   the   application  for  supervisory  review  lodged  by  the   Tula
   Department   and   of  the  Regional  Court's  decision   on   that
   application. He had not received any offer of compensation for non-
   pecuniary damage.
       13.  The  Court observes that on 11 October 2001 the  applicant
   obtained  a  judgment in his favour. On 23 May  2002  the  judgment
   became  enforceable  against  the Treasury.  However,  it  remained
   unenforced until 3 December 2004, that is for more than  two  years
   and  nine 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
       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  breached his right to a court and prevented  him  from
   receiving the money he 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. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
       17. 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
       18.  The applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and  non-
   pecuniary damage in the amount determined by the Court.
       19.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed  to
   apply  to a domestic court for adjustment of the original award  in
   line  with inflation. Furthermore, he did not explain what kind  of
   non-pecuniary damage he had sustained in consequence  of  prolonged
   non-enforcement of the judgment. In any event, in the present  case
   a   finding  of  a  violation  would  constitute  sufficient   just
       20.  The  Court reiterates, firstly, that applicants cannot  be
   required  to  exhaust domestic remedies to obtain compensation  for
   pecuniary  loss since this would prolong the procedure  before  the
   Court  in  a  manner incompatible with the effective protection  of
   human  rights (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece  (Article
   50),  judgment of 31 October 1995, Series A No. 330-B, з  40).  Nor
   is  there a requirement that an applicant furnish any proof of  the
   non-pecuniary damage he or she sustained.
       Turning to the applicant's claim, the Court accepts that he has
   suffered   distress   and  frustration   because   of   the   State
   authorities'  failure to enforce the judgment in his favour  within
   a  reasonable  time. Making its assessment on an  equitable  basis,
   the  Court  awards  the  applicant EUR 1,800  in  respect  of  non-
   pecuniary  damage,  plus any tax that may  be  chargeable  on  that
                         B. Costs and expenses
       21.  The  applicant also claimed compensation for his  expenses
   incurred  in  the Strasbourg proceedings. He submitted receipts  to
   the total amount of 357.80 Russian roubles.
       22. The Government made no comments on this claim.
       23. 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 20, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
                          C. Default interest
       24.  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
       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;
       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 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) in respect  of
   non-pecuniary damage;
       (ii) EUR 20 (twenty 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.
       Done  in  English,  and notified in writing  on  1  June  2006,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN

<<< Назад




Новости сайта Тюрьма

Hosted by uCoz