EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF IGUSHEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 36407/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 9.II.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 Igusheva 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 19 January 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 36407/02) 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 a Russian national, Ms Lyudmila
Aleksandrovna Igusheva ("the applicant"), on 22 September 2002.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms N.M. Bartova, a lawyer
practising in Ukhta. 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 27 April 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 1956 and lives in Ukhta in the
Republic of Komi.
5. In March 1995 the applicant was charged with murder and an
obligation not to leave the place of her residence without
permission was imposed on her as a preventive measure. During the
subsequent criminal investigation she was detained on remand from
24 May 1995 to 29 May 1996. On the latter date an obligation not
to leave the place of her residence without permission was again
imposed on her. In January 1997 she was convicted of murder and
sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The sentence was considered
to have been served in view of the applicant's detention on
remand. In June 1997, on appeal, the Supreme Court of the Republic
of Komi found that the applicant had not committed the crime as
she had acted in self-defence. It quashed the judgment and
discontinued the criminal proceedings.
6. On 28 January 2002 the applicant brought proceedings against
the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, claiming non-
pecuniary damages caused by her unlawful prosecution, detention
and conviction. On 15 February 2002 the Ukhta Town Court held that
the applicant was entitled to compensation on account of her
unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction. It found, inter
alia, that the applicant had never been prosecuted earlier, that
she had a minor child at the time, that her deprivation of liberty
had involved stress and sufferings, that her health had
deteriorated as a result of her stay in the detention facility and
that she had had no liberty of movement and freedom to choose her
residence for a long time. It allowed her claim in part and
awarded her 70,000 Russian roubles (RUR) for non-pecuniary damage
at the expense of the Federal Treasury. The parties appealed. On
28 March 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi upheld the
judgment which came into force on the same day.
7. On 4 April 2002 the Town Court sent an execution writ to the
applicant. On 22 April 2002 the applicant submitted it, together
with supporting documents, to the Ukhta town department of the
Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance. On 24 April 2002 the
latter forwarded the documents to the Republic Komi department of
the Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance which, in its
turn, on 26 April 2002 forwarded the documents to the Ministry of
Finance which received them on 7 May 2002.
8. In December 2002 and in April 2003 the applicant complained
about the non-enforcement of the judgment to the Minister of
Finance and to other authorities.
9. On 6 May 2003 the Federal Treasury transferred RUR 70,000 to
the Republic Komi department of the Federal Treasury for the
enforcement of the judgment. On 14 May 2003 the latter transferred
RUR 70,000 to the applicant's bank account. The amount was
credited to the applicant's account on 16 May 2003.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
10. The applicant complained about the prolonged non-
enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The Court will examine
this complaint under Article 6 з 1 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles, in so far as
relevant, 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."
11. The Government submitted that the enforcement of the
judgment became possible only after the relevant procedure for the
payment of awards in damages imposed by courts for unlawful acts
of the State bodies and officials had been established by the
Government's decision No. 666 of 9 September 2002 and the Ministry
of Finance's regulations of 8 April 2003. The Government asserted
that the enforcement of the judgment did not contravene Article 6
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
12. The applicant disagreed with the Government's arguments and
maintained her complaint.
A. Admissibility
13. 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
14. The Government's submissions are summarised in paragraph 11
above.
15. The applicant maintained her complaint.
16. The Court reiterates that a delay in the enforcement of a
judgment may be justified in particular circumstances. However,
the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the "right
to a court" protected by Article 6 з 1 and to interfere with an
applicant's property rights in a manner incompatible with Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, зз 33 -
42, ECHR 2002-III). The limit of tolerance as regards the delay in
honouring a judgment debt will depend of different factors, such
as the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's
own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, the amount
and the nature of court award (see Gorokhov and Rusyayev v.
Russia, No. 38305/02, з 31, 17 March 2005).
17. The Court observes that the judgment of 15 February 2002,
as upheld on 28 March 2002, awarded the applicant a sum of money.
Hence, it was not particularly difficult to execute. The Court
observes further that the monetary compensation in issue was
awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage which the applicant had
incurred as a result of her unlawful prosecution and detention on
remand during one year in conditions which had resulted in
deterioration of her health, as follows from the judgment (see
paragraph 6 above). The judgment remained inoperative for one
year, one month and eighteen days. Nothing suggests that the
applicant can be blamed for delaying the enforcement of the
judgment. The latter is fully attributable to the State
authorities. No acceptable justification was advanced by the
Government for this delay.
18. The Court considers that the delay in the enforcement of
the judgment in the applicant's favour was not justified in the
circumstances of the present case.
19. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
20. 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
21. The applicant claimed not less than 10,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. She submitted that the amount
awarded to her by the judgment of 15 February 2002, as upheld on
28 March 2002, was not just satisfaction for sufferings caused to
her by her unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction. The
delay in the enforcement of the judgment caused her additional
distress.
22. The Government submitted that no just satisfaction should
be awarded to the applicant as they did not consider that her
rights under the Convention had been violated. Should the Court
find a violation of the Convention or Protocols thereto, such a
finding would be adequate just satisfaction. In so far as the
applicant urged the Court to reconsider the sum awarded to her by
the domestic courts her claims were irrelevant. The claim for non-
pecuniary damage was excessive and unreasonable, the relevant
guidelines being established in the case of Burdov v. Russia.
23. The Court notes that inasmuch as the claim relates to the
applicant's wrongful prosecution and detention, it is irrelevant
for the purposes of the present proceedings. However, the Court
accepts that the applicant must have suffered distress, anxiety
and frustration caused by the prolonged non-enforcement of the
judgment in her favour. Taking into account all the relevant
factors, including the nature of the court award, and making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant
EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that
may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
24. The applicant claimed RUR 10,000 in respect of her
representation in the domestic proceedings which ended with the
judgment of 15 February 2002, as upheld on 28 March 2002. She
claimed RUR 20,000 in respect of her representation before the
Court and RUR 1,098.35 for postage expenses.
25. The Government submitted that the claim was unreasonable
and that in any event only the sum of RUR 20,000 was relevant to
the applicant's representation before the Court.
26. 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 information in its possession and the
above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for legal costs in the
domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the sum
of EUR 600 for the applicant's representation in the proceedings
before the Court and the postage expenses.
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
points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з 1 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 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR 600 (six hundred 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} <*> NIELSEN
Registrar
--------------------------------
<*> Слово на национальном языке набрано латинским шрифтом и
выделено фигурными скобками.
|
