EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SUNTSOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 55687/00)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 17.XI.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> 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 Suntsova 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. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 October 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 55687/00) 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 Lyudmila Grigoryevna Suntsova, a
Russian national, on 12 September 1999.
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 30 September 2003 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
I. The circumstances of the case
4. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Volgograd.
5. Pursuant to a decision of the Volgograd Central District
Administration of 14 October 1987 the applicant began receiving a
monthly single mother allowance in respect of her daughter who was
born on 15 April 1986.
6. In 1998, from April to July, the applicant received no
payments.
On 4 September 1998 the applicant brought proceedings before
the Central District Court of the City of Volgograd (Центральный
районный суд города Волгограда) requesting the payment of
outstanding sums.
7. By a judgment of 21 September 1998 the court allowed the
applicant's claim and ordered the Finance Department of the
Volgograd Regional Administration (Волгоградское облфинуправление)
to pay the applicant 467.56 roubles (RUR).
8. Following the entry into force of the judgment, the court's
bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings for recovery of the sum
awarded to the applicant. However, the applicant was informed that
in 1998 the court judgment could not be enforced, because the
defendant lacked sufficient funds.
9. The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the
judgment to the Department of Justice of the Volgograd Regional
Administration (Управление юстиции администрации Волгоградской
области), which on 16 February 1999 forwarded her complaint to the
bailiff's service of the first instance court for reply and
necessary measures.
In an undated letter of 1999, the bailiff's service informed
the applicant that it had issued a writ of execution, but had not
yet received from the defendant the sum due to the applicant.
10. According to the Governments submissions, which were not
contested by the applicant, the sum of RUR 467.56 was paid to her
twice - on 29 September 2000 and on 9 October 2002.
II. Relevant domestic law
11. 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.
12. Under Section 13 of the Law, the enforcement proceedings
should be completed within two months of the receipt of the writ
of enforcement by the bailiff.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
13. 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."
A. Admissibility
14. The Government contested the admissibility of the
application on the grounds that the judgment concerned had been
executed and the applicant had failed to challenge the bailiff's
actions in court, i.e. she had not exhausted the domestic
remedies. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to initiate any
domestic proceedings with respect to her claim for compensation of
non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement of the judgment
in her favour.
15. The applicant maintained that she complained against the
bailiff's inactivity to the Department of Justice of the Volgograd
Regional Administration.
16. As regards the Government's argument that the judgment in
question has already been enforced, the Court considers that the
mere fact that the authorities complied with the judgment after a
substantial delay cannot be viewed in this case as automatically
depriving the applicant of her victim status under the Convention
(see, e.g., Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, з 16, 24 February
2005).
17. As to the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by
the applicant, the Court reiterates that Article 35 з 1 of the
Convention, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic
remedies, provides for a distribution of the burden of proof. It
is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy
the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory
and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was
accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in
respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable
prospects of success. However, once this burden of proof has been
satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy
advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some
reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances
of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving
him or her from the requirement (see Selmouni v. France [GC], No.
25803/94, з 76, ECHR 1999-V).
The only remedies which Article 35 of the Convention requires
to be exhausted are those that relate to the breaches alleged and
at the same time are available and sufficient. The existence of
such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but
also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite
accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State
to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see
Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], No. 57220/00, з 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
18. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the
Government put forward no reasons why an action against the
bailiff's service should be considered an effective remedy. There
is no suggestion that it was inefficiency of the bailiff's service
which prevented the enforcement of the judgment at issue. In fact,
the Government conceded that the delays in enforcement of the
judgment concerned had been caused by circumstances beyond the
bailiff's control. Apparently, the reason for the delay was the
lack of funds. The Court therefore finds that an action against
the bailiff's service would not have enhanced the applicant's
prospects of receiving her award. The Court considers that in the
present case it could not be said to have constituted an effective
remedy against non-enforcement (see Plotnikovy v. Russia, No.
43883/02, з 17, 24 February 2005).
19. The Court therefore does not accept that the applicant was
required to exhaust domestic remedies through a further court
action against the bailiff's service.
20. The Court observes 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
21. The Government stressed that the judgment in the
applicant's favour had been executed. The delays in the
enforcement of the judgment had been caused by circumstances
beyond the bailiff's control. At the relevant time, the Bailiff's
Service of the Volgograd Region had had to deal with more than
18,000 enforcement documents concerning recovery of child benefit
arrears totalling RUR 18,500,000.
22. The applicant maintained her complaints.
23. The Court observes that the judgment of 21 September 1998
remained inoperative for about two years. No acceptable
justification was advanced by the Government for this delay.
24. 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, Petrushko, cited above, or Poznakhirina v. Russia,
No. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).
25. 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 two years to comply with the
enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic
authorities prevented her from receiving the money she could
reasonably have expected to receive.
26. 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
27. 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."
28. The applicant claimed RUR 100,000 in respect of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage.
29. The Government objected to the claim, noting that the
applicant had not initiated any settlement of this issue in
domestic courts.
30. The Court notes that the applicant has not submitted any
documents supporting her claim for pecuniary damage. The Court
does not discern any causal link between the violation found and
the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
31. As regards the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the
Court would not exclude that the applicant might have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. However, having
regard to the nature of the breach in this case and making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considers that the
finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the
applicant (see, in a similar context, Poznakhirina, cited above, з
35).
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;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
4. Dismisses the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 November 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
Santiago QUESADA
Deputy Registrar
|
