EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LEVIN v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 33264/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 2.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 Levin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
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 12 January 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 33264/02) 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, Mr Aleksandr
Fedorovich Levin ("the applicant"), on 6 August 2002.
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 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
4. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Obninsk in the
Kaluga Region.
5. In 1987 the applicant took part in emergency operations at
the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. Since 1994, when
the link was established between his disability and his
involvement in the Chernobyl events, the applicant has been in
receipt of monthly health damage compensation. He brought
proceedings against the Obninsk town pension authority to
challenge the amount of the compensation.
6. On 20 January 2000 the Obninsk Town Court of the Kaluga
Region ("the Town Court") granted the applicant's claim and
ordered the pension authority to make monthly compensation
payments of 3,161.19 Russian roubles (RUR) and pay him the
outstanding compensation in the amount of RUR 20,082.86.
7. The judgment was upheld by the Kaluga Regional Court ("the
Regional Court") and came into force on 6 April 2000.
8. On 7 June 2000 the Town Court issued two writs of execution,
for the monthly compensation and the arrears. On 8 June 2000 the
bailiffs brought enforcement proceedings against the pension
authority in this respect. By decisions of 25 July and 25 November
2000 the bailiffs forwarded the execution writs to the Obninsk
Town Department of the Federal Treasury as an authority
responsible for the enforcement and discontinued the enforcement
proceedings.
9. Following the applicant's request, on 2 October 2000 the
Town Court clarified that the enforcement of the judgment should
be made at the expense of the federal budget.
10. On 4 April 2001 the Town Department of the Federal Treasury
returned both writs to the applicant without enforcement. They
stated, in particular, that under the legislation in force
execution writs issued against the Federal Treasury should be
submitted directly to the Ministry of Finance.
11. Following the applicant's request, on 1 June 2001 the Town
Court clarified that the monthly compensation payments awarded by
the judgment of 20 January 2000 should be paid with subsequent
indexation based on the statutory minimum wage.
12. On 24 July 2001 the applicant applied to the Ministry of
Finance for the enforcement of the judgment.
13. The outstanding compensation of RUR 20,082.86 was paid to
the applicant on 22 April 2002, two years and sixteen days after
the entry into force of the judgment. As regards the monthly
compensation, in 2000 it was paid monthly in the amount of RUR
292.22; the arrears of RUR 31558.67 were paid by a single
instalment on 30 October 2002. In 2001, 2002 and the first half of
2003 the amount of the monthly payments was RUR 350. The amount of
RUR 33734.28 was transferred to the applicant's bank account on 16
December 2002 to pay off the arrears for 2001. The arrears for
2002 in the same amount were paid on 9 April 2003.
14. According to the Government's information, on 19 February
2003, following the prosecutor's application, the Presidium of the
Kaluga Regional Court quashed the ruling of the Town Court of 1
June 2001 in which the latter clarified the judgment of 20 January
2000. Following a fresh action brought by the applicant, on 17
April 2003 the Town Court found that the amount of the
compensation established in its judgment of 20 January 2001 should
have been increased as the relevant legislation required that it
was subject to indexation based on the statutory minimum wage in
2001 and on the statutory living wage in 2002. It ordered the
Obninsk Social Security Service to pay the applicant the health
damage compensation monthly in the amount of RUR 6,574.41 with
subsequent indexation in accordance with law. It also ordered the
payment of arrears for 2001 - 2002 totalling RUR 48,466.63. The
judgment was upheld by the Kaluga Regional Court and came into
force on 29 May 2003.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
15. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement
of the judgment of 20 January 2000 as upheld on 6 April 2000 in
his favour violated his "right to a court" under Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of
possessions as provided in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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."
A. Admissibility
16. In their letter of 26 July 2004 the Government stated that
as a part of their friendly settlement efforts the applicant was
offered compensation for the damage caused by the delay in the
enforcement of the judgment. The applicant refused. The Government
invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
They also submitted that the ruling of the Obninsk Town Court of 1
June 2001, which clarified that the monthly compensation was
subject to indexation based on the statutory minimum wage, did not
provide the applicant with "possessions" within the meaning of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, unlike the judgment of 20 January
2000 as upheld on 6 April 2000.
17. The applicant disagreed with the Government's arguments and
invited the Court to proceed with the examination of the case.
18. As regards the Government's argument concerning the ruling
of the Obninsk Town Court of 1 June 2001, the Court notes that the
ruling in question was quashed on 19 February 2003 and that the
issues of index-linking the compensation was examined in the
separate proceedings which ended with the decision of the Kaluga
Regional Court of 29 May 2003, the latter not being within the
scope of the present application (see Vysotskiy v. Russia (dec.),
No. 64153/00, 20 November 2003).
19. As regards the applicant's refusal to accept the settlement
of the case proposed by the Government, the Court recalls that
under certain circumstances an application may indeed be struck
out under Article 37 з 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a
unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even if the
applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see
Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], No. 26307/95, з 76, ECHR 2003-...). It
notes, however, that the Government failed to submit with the
Court any formal unilateral declaration capable of offering a
sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as
defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue
its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Aleksentseva and 28
Others v. Russia, Nos. 75025/01 et seq., 4 September 2003). The
Court therefore rejects the Government's request to strike the
application out under Article 37 of the Convention.
20. The Court observes 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 applicant maintained his complaint and submitted that
the situation with the State's failure to pay the monthly
compensation in time and in the proper amount, the latter being
increased as confirmed by court judgments given in 2003 and 2004,
persisted.
22. The Government submitted that the delay in the enforcement
of the judgment of 20 January 2000 as upheld on 6 April 2000 was
caused by the lack of funds in the federal budget. They informed
the Court of their efforts in ensuring the proper payments being
made to the applicant.
23. The Court notes that the amount of the health damage
compensation payable to the applicant on a monthly basis, which
was determined in the judgment of 20 January 2000 as upheld on 6
April 2000, was liable to change as a result of its indexation
based on the relevant legislation. Thus, the amount of the
compensation fixed in the judgment of 17 April 2003 as upheld on
29 May 2003 and subsequent judgments given in 2003 and 2004 was
different than that in the former judgment given in 2000. The
Court notes that the scope of the present case is limited to the
enforcement of the judgment of 20 January 2000 as upheld on 6
April 2000.
24. It observes that the judgment in question remained
inoperative for two years and sixteen days, in so far as the lump
sum of RUR 20,082.86 is concerned. The full payment of the monthly
compensation awarded by the judgment was delayed for various
periods up to more than two years.
25. 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, among other
authorities, Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and,
more recently, Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, No. 38305/02, 17
March 2005).
26. 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 substantial periods of time to
comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the
domestic authorities prevented him from receiving the money which
he could reasonably have expected to receive.
27. 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
28. 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. Pecuniary damage
29. The applicant claimed RUR 27,811.79 in respect of pecuniary
damage relating to the loss of value of the judgment debt due to
inflation following the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of
20 January 2000 as upheld on 6 April 2000. He also claimed RUR
4,522.23 on the same ground in respect of subsequent judgments
concerning the amount of the health damage compensation given in
his favour in 2003 and 2004.
30. The Government submitted that no just satisfaction should
be awarded to the applicant whose rights had not been violated.
They further submitted that, should the Court find a violation in
the present case, that would be in itself sufficient just
satisfaction. They argued that, in any event, the claim in respect
of pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated. The applicant had not
actually lost the amounts claimed. They also asserted that the
applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his
claim for pecuniary damage as he did not bring relevant
proceedings in domestic courts.
31. The Court reiterates that Article 41 of the Convention does
not require applicants to exhaust domestic remedies a second time
in order to obtain just satisfaction if they have already done so
in vain in respect of their substantive complaints (see De Wilde,
Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 10 March
1972, Series A No. 14, pp. 8 - 9, з 16; Mancheva v. Bulgaria, No.
39609/98, з 72, 30 September 2004). In the circumstances of the
present case, the applicant was not required to exhaust domestic
remedies in respect of his claims for just satisfaction.
32. The Court found that the authorities were responsible for
the prolonged non-enforcement of the Obninsk Town Court's judgment
of 20 January 2000 as upheld on 6 April 2000 in the applicant's
favour. By the time the judgment debt was paid in full its value
had diminished owning to the inflation in Russia at the time. The
applicant thus suffered a pecuniary loss which would have been
avoided had the authorities acted in compliance with their
obligations under Article 6 з 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to comply with the judgment in issue (see Mancheva
v. Bulgaria, cited above, з 73).
33. The applicant submitted certificate of the Kaluga Regional
Department of the State Statistics No. 37 - 46 of 19 August 2004
showing the consumer price index in the reference period. Thus,
according to the certificate, the inflation rate in 2000 was
118.55%, in 2001 - 119.57%, in 2002 - 117.49% and in 2003 -
114.34%.
34. The Court has had regard to the applicant's statement of
claim, which contains detailed calculations not contested as such
by the Government. The applicant's calculations appearing to
possess a sufficient basis in precise macro-economic information,
the Court is not disposed to dismiss them in the absence of any
reasoned and reasonable alternative. It therefore allows the
applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage, in so far as the
judgment of 20 January 2000 as upheld on 6 April 2000 is
concerned, and awards him the sum of RUR 27,811.79 under this
head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
35. The applicant claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-
pecuniary damage.
36. In addition to their general submissions indicated in
paragraph 30 above, the Government stated that in the light of
Burdov v. Russia they considered the claim in respect of non-
pecuniary damage reasonable.
37. The Court also accepts that the applicant must have
suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State
authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in his favour, which
cannot sufficiently be compensated by the finding of a violation.
The Court takes into account the award it made in the case of
Burdov v. Russia (cited above, з 47), the nature of the award in
the instant case, the delay before the enforcement and other
relevant aspects. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it
awards the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
38. The applicant did not seek reimbursement of his costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court.
Accordingly, the Court does not make any award under this head.
C. Default interest
39. 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:
(i) RUR 27,811.79 (twenty seven thousand eight hundred and
eleven roubles and seventy-nine kopecks) in respect of pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred 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;
(iii) 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 2 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.
|
