EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 75470/01)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 13.IV.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 Sukhobokov 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,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
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, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 75470/01) 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, Alik
Kersanovich Sukhobokov ("the applicant"), on 27 June 2001.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
by Mr P.A. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 16 February 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 1937 and lives in Volgodonsk,
Rostov region.
5. The applicant receives an old-age pension. The Law on
Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions of 21 July 1997 (the
"Pensions Law") introduced, since 1 February 1998, a new method of
calculating pensions. This method, "Individual Pensioner
Coefficient" ("IPC"), was meant to link a person's pension to his
previous earnings.
6. On 22 April 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against
the Volgodonsk labour and social development authority
(Департамент труда и социального развития) before the Volgodonsk
Town Court. He argued that his IPC should be fixed at 0.7, which
would result in an increase in his pension.
7. The Town Court found for the applicant and ordered the
defendant authority to re-calculate the applicant's pension from 1
February 1998 based on the IPC equal to 0.7 and pay the arrears of
3,186.36 roubles. According to the applicant and the documents
submitted by him, the judgment was dated 25 October 1999 and came
into force on 8 December 1999. According to the Government, the
judgment was dated 25 November 1999 and came into force on 5
December 1999.
8. On 14 January 2000 the Town Court issued a writ of
execution. On 26 January 2000 the Volgodonsk bailiff's service
instituted enforcement proceedings. As the payments in enforcement
of the judgment had not been made the applicant complained to
various authorities. In letters of 10 June and 3 October 2000 the
enforcement proceedings supervision department of the Rostov
region division of the Ministry of Justice informed him that the
judgment debt would be paid to him upon receipt of funds from the
State budget.
9. According to the Government, the Volgodonsk labour and
social development authority lodged an application with the Town
Court for re-consideration of the judgment given in the
applicant's case due to discovery of new circumstances. The
authority argued that such a circumstance was an instruction of
the Ministry of Labour and Social Development of 29 December 1999,
which interpreted the Pensions Law in a way different from that in
the judgment. On 29 September 2000 the Town Court granted the
authority's application and quashed the judgment due to discovery
of new circumstances, notably the above ministerial instruction.
10. According to the applicant, he was never informed of the
court decision of 29 September 2000.
11. On 5 January 2001 the Volgodonsk bailiff's service
terminated the enforcement proceedings. It stated in its decision
as follows:
"The proceedings [instituted on the basis of the writ of
execution in favour of A.K. Sukhobokov] should be considered as
terminated in connection with remitting the writ of execution,
without enforcement, at the request of the court.
On the basis of the foregoing, being governed by Section 27 (2)
of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings, decided that:
1. The enforcement proceedings No.... should be considered as
terminated.
2. The present decision may be appealed against to a relevant
court within a ten-day term.
3. The enforcement proceedings [file] should be transferred to
the archive.
4. The writ of execution No.... issued by the Volgodonsk Town
Court should be remitted to the Volgodonsk Town Court..."
12. According to the applicant, he received a copy of that
decision on 24 March 2001.
13. According to the applicant, the amount of his monthly
pension was 1,523 roubles as of 1 May 2001.
Relevant domestic law
14. Section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of
21 July 1997 provides that a bailiff's order on the institution of
enforcement proceedings must fix a time-limit for the defendant's
voluntary compliance with a writ of execution. The time-limit may
not exceed five days. The bailiff must also warn the defendant
that coercive action will follow, should the defendant fail to
comply with the time-limit.
15. Under Section 13 of the Law, the enforcement proceedings
should be completed within two months of the receipt of the writ
of execution by the bailiff.
16. Section 27 of the Law reads:
"1. The enforcement proceedings are terminated:
...
2) by remitting the writ of execution, without enforcement, to
the court or other body, by which it was issued, or a creditor at
their request;"
...
2. The bailiff's decision on the termination of the enforcement
proceedings is subject to appeal to a relevant court within a ten-
day term."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention in
respect of non-enforcement of a final judgment
in the applicant's favour
17. The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the
judgment in his favour. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention
which, in so far as relevant, reads 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..."
18. The Government submitted that the enforcement proceedings
had been carried out in strict compliance with the domestic law.
They had been timely initiated. However, it had been temporarily
impossible to enforce the judgment by paying the applicant the
awarded amount of the pension since the defendant authority had
had no funds. Eventually the judgment had not been enforced
because it had been quashed by the decision of the Volgodonsk Town
Court of 29 September 2000. The Government concluded that the
complaint should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-
founded.
19. The applicant maintained his complaint. He argued that he
had not been informed about the quashing of the judgment.
A. Admissibility
20. The Court notes that this complaint 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 parties' submissions are summarised in paragraphs 18
and 19 above.
22. The Court reiterates that Article 6 з 1 secures to everyone
the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and
obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it
embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access,
that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil
matters, constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be
illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a
final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the
detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 з
1 should describe in detail the procedural guarantees afforded to
litigants - proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious -
without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to
construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a
court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to
situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law
which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they
ratified the Convention. Execution of a judgment given by any
court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the
"trial" for the purposes of Article 6 (see Burdov v. Russia, No.
59498/00, з 34, ECHR 2002-III, and Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of
19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510,
з 40). The State should comply with final judicial decisions
against it within reasonable time (see Burdov, cited above, зз 35
- 37; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, No. 38305/02, з 35, 17
March 2005).
23. Turning to the instant case, the Court observes that by the
judgment of the Volgodonsk Town Court the applicant's claim for re-
calculation of his old-age pension was granted and the applicant
was entitled to RUR 3,186.36, representing pension arrears, and an
increase in his pension henceforth. This judgment has not been
enforced. The Government have advanced two reasons for the failure
to enforce the judgment - the lack of funds and the quashing of
the judgment by the decision of the Volgodonsk Town Court of 29
September 2000. The Court will have to consider whether those
reasons are capable of justifying the State's failure to comply
with its final judgment awarding the applicant sums at the expense
of the State treasury.
24. The Court reiterates that it is not open to a State
authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a
judgment debt. Admittedly, a delay in the execution of a judgment
may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay may
not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under
Article 6 з 1 (see Burdov, cited above, з 35).
25. The Court further notes that it found a violation of
Article 6 з 1 in the case of Pravednaya, in which a final judgment
allowing the applicant's claim for re-calculation of her old-age
pension was quashed by way of reopening of the proceedings on
account of the discovery of new circumstances, notably an
instruction of 29 December 1999 of the federal Ministry of Labour
and Social Development which clarified how to apply the Pensions
Law underlying the judgment (see Pravednaya v. Russia, No.
69529/01, 18 November 2004). The Court found that the quashing of
the judgment, as a result of what was an "appeal in disguise"
rather than a conscientious effort to make good a miscarriage of
justice, breached the principle of legal certainty and the
applicant's "right to a court" (ibid., з 33).
26. In the present case the judgment allowing a similar claim
was quashed, more than nine months after it had come into force,
during which time it had not been enforced for the reason of lack
of State funds. The quashing took place in the same way as in
Pravednaya, on account of the discovery of new circumstances. The
same ministerial instruction, which interpreted the Pensions Law
in a different manner from that applied in the judgment in the
applicant's case and which was issued after the judgment had come
into force, served as such a "new" circumstance. It is conceivable
that the statutory pensions regulations are liable to change and a
judicial decision cannot be relied on as a guarantee against such
changes in the future. However, the enforcement of a final
judgment awarding a pension in respect of a period preceding the
judgment should be guaranteed. The Court's task in the present
case is not to assess whether the quashing of the judgment as such
was compatible with the Convention, but rather whether the
quashing was capable of justifying the failure to enforce the
judgment. With regard to the latter question, the Court does not
find any reason which would enable it to reach a different
conclusion in the present case from that in Pravednaya. Therefore,
the quashing of the judgment, which did not respect the principle
of legal certainty and the applicant's "right to a court", cannot
be accepted as a reason to justify the non-enforcement of the
judgment.
27. Thus, neither of the reasons cited by the Government are
capable of justifying the State's failure to comply with the
judgment in the applicant's case. There has accordingly been a
violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention in
respect of the length of examination of the applicant's case
28. The applicant also complained about the length of
examination of his case by the Volgodonsk Town Court, which ended
with the judgment of 25 October 1999. He relied on Article 6 of
the Convention which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...,
everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by
[a]... tribunal..."
Admissibility
29. The Court notes that the period to be taken into
consideration began on 22 April 1999, when the applicant filed his
civil action with the court, and ended on 25 October 1999, when
the first-instance court gave the judgment, according to the
applicant. The applicant lodged the present application with the
Court on 27 June 2001, more than six months after 25 October 1999.
30. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of
time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 зз 1 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. In his application form of 5 September 2001 the applicant
claimed 20,000 US dollars in respect of pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damage.
33. In their letter of 24 May 2004 the Government submitted
that no just satisfaction should be awarded to the applicant as
they did not consider that his rights had been violated. They
further stated that should the Court find a violation of the
Convention in the applicant's case, the finding of a violation
would be adequate just satisfaction. The Government concluded that
in any event the award should be made in the light of the Court's
judgment in the case of Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-
III.
34. The Court notes that the basis on which it may award just
satisfaction in the instant case is a violation of Article 6 з 1
on account of the failure to enforce a final judgment in the
applicant's favour. As regards pecuniary damage, the Court
observes that by the final judgment of the Volgodonsk Town Court,
which came into force in December 1999, the applicant was awarded
the arrears in the payment of his pension during the period
preceding the judgment in the amount of 3,186.36 Russian roubles,
which he never received. The Court considers that the applicant
has thus incurred pecuniary damage. Deciding on an equitable
basis, the Court awards the applicant 150 euros (EUR) in this
respect, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
35. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court finds that the
applicant must have suffered non-pecuniary damage which the
finding of a violation of the Convention in this judgment does not
suffice to remedy. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by
Article 41, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 1,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on this amount.
B. Default interest
36. 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 the non-enforcement of the
judgment admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention;
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 150 (one
hundred fifty euros) in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000
(one thousand 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 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 13 April 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
|
