EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF VALENTINA VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 7237/03)
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 Valentina Vasilyeva 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 {N. Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev, 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. 7237/03) 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 Valentina
Ivanovna Vasilyeva, on 20 November 2001.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 7 October 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 1954 and lives in Voronezh.
5. The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In
2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare
authority, claiming arrears in those payments.
6. On 2 November 2000 the Tsentralny District Court of Voronezh
awarded the applicant 2,388.49 Russian roubles (RUR). This
judgment entered into force on 13 November 2000 and on the same
date the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
7. On 28 September 2001 the Voronezh Department of the Central
Bank of Russia informed the applicant that the judgment in her
favour could not be enforced for lack of the debtor's funds.
8. On 11 September 2002 the bailiffs returned the writ of
execution to the applicant without enforcement.
9. By letter of 21 March 2003 the Voronezh Department of the
Central Bank of Russia invited the applicant to address her
queries concerning the enforcement of the judgment of 2 November
2000 to the debtor.
10. In January - February 2004 the applicant was paid the
amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
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 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
13. The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement
of the judgment of 2 November 2000. 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 informed the Court that the authorities of
the Voronezh Region had attempted to secure a friendly settlement
of the case and that the applicant had refused to accept the
friendly settlement on the terms proposed by the authorities. By
reference to this refusal and to the fact that, in any event, the
judgment in the applicant's favour had been enforced, the
Government invited the Court to strike out the application, in
accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
15. The applicant disagreed with the Government's arguments and
maintained her complaints. As regards the friendly settlement
proposal, the applicant claimed that the authorities of the
Voronezh Region had made an offer to her, but did not allow her to
acquaint herself with the terms of that offer and that, in any
event, the amount of the judgment debt transferred to her account
in 2004 had lost its purchasing power due to inflation.
16. The Court firstly observes that the parties were unable to
agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. The Court
recalls that under certain circumstances an application may indeed
be struck out of its list of cases 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-...).
17. On the facts, the Court observes that the Government failed
to submit with the Court any formal statement capable of falling
into the latter category and 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, to Akman v. Turkey (striking out), No.
37453/97, зз 23 - 24, ECHR 2001-VI).
18. 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).
19. In the light of the above considerations, the Court rejects
the Government's request to strike the application out under
Article 37 of the Convention.
20. 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
21. The Government advanced no arguments on the merits of the
application.
22. The applicant maintained her complaint.
23. The Court observes that the judgment of 2 November 2000
remained inoperative for about three years and three months. No
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 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. Other alleged violations of the Convention
27. The applicant also complained that the lengthy non-
enforcement of the judgment in her favour violated her rights to
effective domestic remedies under Article 13 of the Convention.
28. The Court considers that this complaint is linked to the
above issues of non-enforcement to such an extent that it should
be declared admissible as well. However, having regard to the
finding relating to Article 6 з 1 (see paragraph 26 above), the
Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in
this case, there has been a violation of Article 13.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
29. 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
30. As regards compensation for pecuniary damage, the applicant
claimed RUR 4976.66 as the interest payable at a statutory rate of
28% for the default period as well as 30,000 US dollars (USD), of
which USD 10,000 represented the amount she could have earned
during the period when, instead, she had sought the enforcement of
the judgment in her favour and USD 20,000 was the compensation for
the losses her child had sustained as a result of the untimely
enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 2000. She also claimed
USD 45,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
31. The Government contested the applicant's claims as wholly
excessive and unjustified. As regards the pecuniary damage, they
pointed out that under national law it was open to the applicant
to file a court claim, seeking interest for the delayed payment of
her judgment debt, and that the domestic courts would calculate
such interest on the basis of a statutory rate which was currently
equal to 14%. Therefore, in the Government's view, the interest
accrued by the applicants should amount to RUR 1,337.55. As to the
non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that should the
Court find a violation in this case that would in itself
constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
32. Having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court
accepts the Government's argument and awards the applicant RUR
1,337.55, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
pecuniary damage.
33. 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).
B. Costs and expenses
34. The applicant also claimed RUR 10,000 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
35. The Government considered the applicant's claims to be
unfounded and manifestly excessive and noted that the documents
submitted by the applicant lacked evidence that she had incurred
such costs.
36. 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 considers it reasonable to award
applicant the sum of EUR 20 in respect of costs and expenses, plus
any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
37. 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 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under
Article 13 of the Convention;
4. 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 1,337.55 (one thousand three hundred and thirty-seven
roubles and fifty-five kopecks) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 20 (twenty euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to
be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself
sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage
sustained by the applicant;
6. Dismisses the remainder of 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
|
