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 KORCHAGIN v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 19798/04)
                             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 Korchagin 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.
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mrs E. Steiner,
       Mr K. Hajiyev,
       Mr D. Spielmann,
       Mr S.E. Jebens, 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. 19798/04) 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  Valeriy
   Pavlovich Korchagin, on 16 February 2004.
       2.  The  applicant was represented before the Court  by  Mr  R.
   Tontaryov,  a lawyer practising in Rostov in the Yaroslavl  Region.
   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 1942 and lives in Rostov in  the
   Yaroslavl Region.
       5.  On  5  October  2000 criminal proceedings  were  instituted
   against  the applicant on suspicion of theft. On 19 April 2001  the
   proceedings  were  discontinued as no  indications  of  a  criminal
   offence had been established.
       6.  The  applicant  sued the Ministry of the Interior  for  the
   damage sustained through the unlawful prosecution.
       7.  On  26 September 2001 the Rostovskiy District Court of  the
   Yaroslavl Region granted the applicant's claim and awarded him  RUR
   5,000  (EUR  184). As no appeal had been lodged within the  ten-day
   statutory  time-limit,  on  8  October  2001  the  judgment  became
   binding and the District Court issued the applicant with a writ  of
       8. On 15 November 2001 the Moscow bailiffs returned the writ to
   the  applicant,  indicating  that  he  should  have  submitted   it
   directly to the Ministry of Finance.
       9.  On  14  January 2002 the applicant sent  the  writ  to  the
   Ministry  of Finance which acknowledged its receipt on 11  February
       10. On 25 April 2002 the Ministry of Finance forwarded the writ
   to  the Ministry of the Interior. According to the Government,  the
   Ministry  of  the Interior decided that payment should be  effected
   by the Ministry of Finance and returned the writ.
       11.  On  16 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance asked the Ministry
   of  the Interior whether the judgment had been appealed against. On
   21  August  2003  the  Ministry of the Interior  responded  to  the
       12.  On  10  September 2003 the Ministry of  Finance  paid  the
   amount  outstanding to the applicant's bank account. The  applicant
   was not informed about the payment.
       13. In November 2003 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor
   General's  Office about prolonged non-enforcement of the  judgment.
   On  18  December  2003  the  Office forwarded  his  letter  to  the
   Ministry of Finance. No further replies have been received.
                                THE LAW
                   I. Alleged violation of Article 6
           of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
       14. 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
       15. 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
       16.  The Government submitted that the judgment had been  fully
   enforced  and that the authorities had taken necessary  and  lawful
   measures for enforcement. It was open to the applicant to apply  to
   a  court  for adjustment of the award to take account of  inflation
   or for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He had done neither.
       17. The applicant responded that he had never been informed  of
   the  transfer of money onto his bank account, his complaint to  the
   Prosecutor  General's  Office in November 2003  bears  evidence  to
   that.  He  had only learnt of the enforcement from the Government's
   memorandum  in  April 2005. He considered that no  objective  cause
   could account for the two years' delay in enforcement.
       18.  On the facts, the Court observes that on 26 September 2001
   the  applicant obtained a judgment in his favour. On 8 October 2001
   the  judgment  became  enforceable  against  the  Ministry  of  the
   Interior. However, it remained unenforced until 10 September  2003,
   that is for almost two years.
       19. 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).
       20.  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. It considers that the delays in  enforcement
   were   entirely  attributable  to  the  conduct  of  the   domestic
   authorities.  The  first delay was caused by the  bailiffs  service
   which  returned the writ to the applicant instead of forwarding  it
   directly to the competent State agency. Further significant  delays
   were  occasioned  by  the  difference of opinion  between  the  two
   Ministries  as  to  which one should pay the  award.  Finally,  the
   applicant  was never informed of the bank transfer to his  account.
   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.
       21.  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
       22. 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
       23. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-
   pecuniary  damage.  He  indicated that the amount  outstanding  had
   been an important part of his retirement income.
       24.  The  Government  submitted  that  the  applicant  had  not
   produced any evidence of non-pecuniary damage. Furthermore,  having
   regard to his own conduct and, in particular, his failure to  check
   his  bank  account in good time, no compensation should be  awarded
   to  him. A finding of a violation would constitute sufficient  just
       25.  The  Court  observes  that  non-pecuniary  damage  is  the
   applicant's  subjective  measure of the  distress  he  had  endured
   because  of  a violation of his rights and, by its nature,  is  not
   amenable to proof. Furthermore, the applicant cannot be blamed  for
   the  authorities'  failure to update him on  the  progress  of  the
   enforcement  proceedings. 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  and  taking  into
   account  the  nature of the award as compensation for the  unlawful
   criminal  prosecution, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,200  in
   respect  of  non-pecuniary  damage,  plus  any  tax  that  may   be
   chargeable on that amount.
                         B. Costs and expenses
       26.   The   applicant  did  not  claim  costs   and   expenses.
   Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.
                          C. Default interest
       27.  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, EUR  1,200  (one
   thousand two hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,  to
   be  converted  into Russian roubles 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
       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