EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KUKALO v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 63995/00)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 3.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 Kukalo 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. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 October 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 63995/00) 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 a Russian national, Mikhail
Mikhaylovich Kukalo ("the applicant"), on 17 October 2000.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I.V. Kokorin, a lawyer
practising in Kurgan. 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. The applicant alleged, in particular, that a prolonged non-
execution of final judgments in his favour was incompatible with
the Convention.
4. The application was allocated to the First Section of the
Court (Rule 52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section,
the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з 1 of the
Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
5. By a decision of 3 June 2004, the Court declared the
application partly admissible.
6. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on
the merits (Rule 59 з 1).
7. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its
Sections (Rule 25 з 1). This case was assigned to the newly
composed First Section (Rule 52 з 1).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
8. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kurgan.
9. In 1986 the applicant was called up by the authorities to
take part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl
nuclear plant disaster. As a result, the applicant suffered from
extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.
10. In 1997 following an expert opinion of 14 April 1997, which
established the link between the applicant's poor health and his
involvement in the Chernobyl events, the applicant was granted
monthly health damage compensation.
A. Judgment of 12 May 1999 as clarified on 7 September 1999
11. On 18 February 1999 the applicant brought proceedings
against the Kurgan Social Security Service (МУ "Центр социальной
защиты населения г. Кургана") to challenge the amount of
compensation which he considered to be erroneous.
12. On 12 May 1999 the Kurgan Town Court found for the
applicant and ordered the Social Security Service to make monthly
compensation payments of 1,350.58 Russian roubles (RUR) and pay
outstanding amount due from 14 April 1997. The parties did not
appeal, and the judgment entered into force on 25 May 1999.
13. Following the applicant's request, the Town Court
clarified, by its decision of 7 September 1999 which became final
on 18 September 1999, that the amount of the outstanding
compensation totalled RUR 24,495.94.
14. The judgment of 12 May 1999 was executed on 6 October 2000.
B. Judgment of 21 July 1999 as upheld on 5 October 1999
15. On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings
against the Social Security Service for damages caused by the
delay in execution of the judgment of 12 May 1999.
16. On 21 July 1999 the Town Court found that the Social
Security Service had failed to comply timely with the judgment of
12 May 1999 and awarded the applicant RUR 1,000 as a penalty for
the delay.
17. On 5 October 1999 the Kurgan Regional Court upheld the
judgment on appeal.
18. On 18 October 1999 the Kurgan Bailiff's Service instituted
enforcement proceedings.
19. The judgment of 21 July 1999 was executed on 26 August
2002.
C. Judgment of 10 May 2000 as upheld on 22 June 2000
20. On 10 May 2000 the Town Court allowed the applicant's claim
against the Kurgan Town Council for provision of State housing,
for which he was eligible as a participant of the liquidation of
the Chernobyl disaster. The court ordered the Town Council to
provide the applicant and his wife with separate well-equipped
residential premises located in the town of Kurgan, complying with
sanitary and technical standards, having total surface of no less
than 52 sq. m., taking into account the applicant's entitlement to
one additional room.
21. On 22 June 2000 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on
appeal.
22. On 10 July 2000 the Kurgan Bailiff's Service instituted
enforcement proceedings.
23. The Town Council requested for deferment in execution of
the judgment until 1 July 2001 for the reasons of the lack of
relevant provisions in the town budget for the year 2000 and big
expenses incurred by the Town Council in connection with the
repair of damage caused by flood. By its decision of 17 July 2000
the Town Court granted the deferment until 31 December 2000.
24. At the beginning of 2001 the Town Council asked for another
deferment explaining that the town had to finance preventive
measures in connection with the new threat of flood in spring
2001. As the local authority did not carry out any housing
construction, the execution of the applicant's judgment was only
possible by acquiring a flat on the market. On 20 February 2001
the court granted the deferment until 1 October 2001. On 29 March
2001 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Kurgan Regional
Court.
25. On 20 November 2001 the applicant lodged an application
with the Town Council asking it to acquire for him a flat located
at 26 Blyukher street No. 27 with a total surface of 56.2 sq. m.
The applicant stated that he undertook to make a partial
contribution in the amount of RUR 65,000 towards the cost of the
flat. The applicant also stated in the application that he would
not have any further claims to the Town Council if his request was
granted.
26. By Resolution of 21 December 2001 the Mayor of Kurgan
ordered to grant the applicant a flat at 26 Blyukher street No. 27
of 56.2 sq. m. total surface in execution of the judgment of 10
May 2000.
D. Judgment of 16 May 2000
27. In February 2000 the applicant brought another action
against the Social Security Service to challenge the amount of the
compensation.
28. On 16 May 2000 the Town Court fixed the monthly
compensation at RUR 1,814.13 starting from 8 February 2000. The
parties did not appeal, and the judgment came into force on 27 May
2000.
29. On 5 June 2000 the Kurgan Bailiff's Service instituted
enforcement proceedings.
30. The judgment of 16 May 2000 was enforced on 26 August 2002.
II. Relevant domestic law
A. Enforcement proceedings
31. Section 9 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act (Law No. 119-
FZ of 21 July 1997) provides that a bailiff's order on 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. Pursuant to section
13, the enforcement proceedings must be completed within two
months of the receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff.
B. Implementation of the right to a "social tenancy"
32. The RSFSR Housing Code (Law of 24 June 1983, effective
until 1 March 2005) provided that Russian citizens were entitled
to possess flats owned by the State or municipal authorities or
other public bodies, under the terms of a tenancy agreement
(section 10). Certain "protected" categories of individuals
(disabled persons, war veterans, Chernobyl victims, police
officers, judges, etc.) had a right to priority treatment in the
allocation of flats.
33. A decision on granting a flat was to be implemented by way
of issuing the citizen with an occupancy voucher (ордер на жилое
помещение) from the local municipal authority (section 47). The
voucher served as the legal basis for taking possession of the
flat designated therein and for the signing of a tenancy agreement
between the landlord, the tenant and the housing maintenance
authority (section 51, and also Articles 672 and 674 of the Civil
Code).
34. Members of the tenant's family (including the spouse,
children, parents, disabled dependants and other persons) had the
same rights and obligations under the tenancy agreement as the
tenant (section 53). The tenant had the right to accommodate other
persons in the flat (section 54). In the event of the tenant's
death, an adult member of the tenant's family succeeded him or her
as a party to the tenancy agreement (section 88).
35. Flats were granted for permanent use (section 10). The
tenant could terminate the tenancy agreement at any moment, with
the consent of his or her family members (section 89). The
landlord could terminate the agreement on the grounds provided for
by law and on the basis of a court decision (sections 89 - 90). If
the agreement was terminated because the house was no longer fit
for living in, the tenant and family were to receive a substitute
flat with full amenities (section 91). Tenants or members of their
family could be evicted without provision of substitute
accommodation only if they "systematically destroyed or damaged
the flat", "used it for purposes other than residence" or
"systematically breached the [generally accepted rules of conduct]
making life with others impossible" (section 98).
36. The tenant had the right to exchange the flat for another
flat in the State or municipal housing, including across regions
(section 67). An exchange involved reciprocal transfer of rights
and obligations under the respective tenancy agreements and became
final from the moment of issuing new occupancy vouchers (section
71). "Speculative" or sham exchanges were prohibited (section
73(2)).
C. Rent for State housing
37. The Federal Housing Policy Act (Law No. 4218-I of 24
December 1992) provides that the payments for a flat comprise (i)
a housing maintenance charge, (ii) a housing repair charge, and,
in the case of tenants only, (iii) rent (section 15). The
maintenance and repair charges do not depend on the flat's
ownership, whether private or State. Rent is fixed by regional
authorities, taking into account the surface area and quality of
the housing. It is usually considerably lower than free-market
rent. For example, the highest monthly rent for municipal housing
in Moscow is 80 kopecks (0.02 euro) per square metre (Resolution
of the Moscow Government No. 863-PP of 7 December 2004).
D. Privatisation of State housing
38. In 1991, the Privatisation of Housing Act (Law No. 1541-I
of 4 July 1991) was adopted (it will remain effective until 31
December 2006). It grants Russian citizens the right to acquire
title to State and municipal-owned flats of which they have taken
possession on the basis of a social tenancy agreement (section 2).
The acquisition of title does not require any payment or fee
(section 7). The right to privatisation can be exercised once in a
lifetime (section 11) and requires the consent of all adult family
members.
THE LAW
I. The Government's preliminary objection
39. In their observations of 1 September 2004 the Government
submitted that by a judgment of the Kurgan Town Court of 6 June
2003 the amounts due to the applicant under judgments of the
Kurgan Town Court of 26 April 2000, 16 May 2000 (RUR 5,188) and 6
February 2001 were index-linked in line with inflation in view of
the delay in execution of those judgments. The Government further
submitted that as a part of their friendly settlement efforts the
applicant was offered compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused
by the delay in execution of the judgments, on condition that he
would withdraw his application from the Court. The applicant
refused. The Government concluded that the applicant's rights were
restored and invited the Court to discontinue the examination of
the complaint in accordance with Article 37 з 1 of the Convention.
40. In their letter of 1 March 2005 the Government further
reiterated that since the applicant had refused to accept the
settlement of the case on the terms proposed by the Government, he
lost his victim's status. Therefore his application should be
struck out of the Court's list of cases.
41. The applicant disagreed and invited the Court to proceed
with the examination of the case.
42. The Court notes first that the judgment of 6 June 2003, to
which the Government referred, concerned judgments of the Kurgan
Town Court of 26 April 2000 and 6 February 2001 which are not
within the scope of the Court's examination in the present case.
It also concerned a judgment of the Kurgan Town Court of 16 May
2000 by which the applicant was awarded RUR 5,188. The present
case however concerns only the judgment of the same date by which
the Kurgan Town Court ordered the payment of the monthly
compensation in the amount of RUR 1,814.13 starting from 8
February 2000 (see paragraph 28 above). In the absence of any
explanations by the Government about those inconsistencies, the
Court does not find it necessary to examine their objection in
this respect.
43. 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 this procedure is an exceptional one and is
not, as such, intended to circumvent the applicant's opposition to
a friendly settlement. Furthermore, it observes 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).
44. In view of the above considerations, the Court rejects the
Government's request to strike the application out under Article
37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination
of the merits of the case.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
45. The applicant complained that the prolonged failure to
enforce the judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7 September
1999, 21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, 10 May 2000, as
upheld on 22 June 2000, and 16 May 2000 violated Article 6 of the
Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of Article 6
provide as follows:
"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 reads as follows:
"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. The parties' submissions
46. The Government, in their observations of 1 September 2004,
submitted that the judgments had been enforced and the delay in
their enforcement had been objectively justified. Thus, when the
execution of the judgment of 10 May 2000 was pending there were
14,310 individuals who were registered by the Town Council as
those entitled to the provision of free housing, including 43
Chernobyl victims. Giving priority treatment to the applicant
would have breached the rights of others. Taking into account the
deferments of the enforcement of the judgment of 10 May 2000
granted by the Kurgan Town Court, the period of the enforcement of
that judgment should not be considered unreasonable. The
Government noted that a State flat previously occupied by the
applicant was let for other members of the applicant's family.
47. The applicant submitted that the reason for the prolonged
non-execution of the judgments was not the lack of funds but the
failure of the State to carry out its commitments in relation to
the Chernobyl victims. The delays in execution of the judgments
undermined his right to benefit from the results of the litigation
especially taking into account the high level of inflation in the
country. As regards the judgment of 10 May 2000, the applicant
submitted that the flat granted to him required major renovation
works. His request to the Town Council for acquiring the flat
which was eventually granted to him was written under duress
because otherwise he would have waited for a flat for an
indefinite period of time.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
48. 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; Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19
March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510, з
40).
49. The Court further reiterates that it is not open to a State
authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources (such as
housing) 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. The applicant should not be prevented from benefiting from
the success of the litigation on the ground of alleged financial
difficulties experienced by the State (see Burdov, cited above, з
35).
50. The present case concerns one judgment awarding the
applicant housing and three judgments awarding him monetary funds.
The Court will examine the situation in relation to each category
in turn.
(a) Judgment of 10 May 2000 as upheld on 22 June 2000
51. The Court notes that the judgment of 10 May 2000, by which
the applicant was to be granted housing, remained unenforced until
21 December 2001, for about a year and a half. In so far as the
applicant may be understood as alleging that the flat granted to
him did not meet the terms of the judgment, the Court notes that
on 20 November 2001 the applicant asked the Town Council to
acquire for him that specific flat undertaking to make a
contribution towards its cost and stating that he would not have
any further claims with respect to the housing if his request was
granted. It appears that following the applicant's request the
Town Council acquired the flat and let it to the applicant on a
"social tenancy" agreement. There is no indication that the
applicant ever complained in domestic court or before any other
competent authority that he lodged the application of 20 November
2001 under duress, that the Town Council had to repay his
contribution or that the flat did not meet the terms of the
judgment of 10 May 2000. In these circumstances the Court accepts
the Government's view that the judgment was enforced. It will
further examine whether the delay in its enforcement was
justified.
52. The Court notes that the Kurgan Town Court granted on two
occasions deferments in execution of the judgment, for
approximately five and six months, in both instances for the
reason of the lack of financial resources taking into account the
need to finance flood defence works. Though the alleged lack of
State funds cannot as such serve an excuse for not honouring a
judgment debt, the delay of a year and a half in the circumstances
does not appear to have impaired the essence of the right
protected under Article 6 з 1.
53. There has, therefore, been no violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention.
(b) Judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7 September 1999,
21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, and 16 May 2000
54. The Court notes that the judgment of 12 May 1999 remained
inoperative for more than a year and four months, including a year
after the judgment of 21 July 1999 had been adopted to redress the
non-enforcement of the first one. The judgment of 21 July 1999, in
its turn, remained inoperative for more than two years and ten
months. As regards the judgment of 16 May 2000, it took the State
more than two years and two months to enforce it. No justification
was advanced by the Government for those delays. The Court
considers that in the circumstances, by failing for the above
periods of time to take the necessary measures to comply with the
final judicial decisions in the present case, the Russian
authorities have deprived the provisions of Article 6 з 1 of all
useful effect.
55. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention.
2. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
56. The Court reiterates at the outset that the concept of
"possessions" in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has
an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of
physical goods and is independent from the formal classification
in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting
assets can also be regarded as property rights, and thus as
"possessions" for the purposes of this provision (see Beyeler v.
Italy [GC], No. 33202/96, з 100, ECHR 2000-I, and Iatridis v.
Greece [GC], No. 31107/96, з 54, ECHR 1999-II).
57. The Court further recalls that the right to any social
benefit is not included as such among the rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Convention (see, for example, Aunola v. Finland
(dec.), No. 30517/96, 15 March 2001). The right to live in a
particular property not owned by the applicant does not as such
constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (see H.F. v. Slovakia (dec.), No. 54797/00, 9
December 2003; Kovalenok v. Latvia (dec.), No. 54264/00, 15
February 2001, and J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), No. 41917/98, 27 April
1999).
58. However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of
which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate
expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular
pecuniary asset may also fall within the notion of "possessions"
contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley
Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November
1991, Series A No. 222, p. 23, з 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A.
and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A No.
332, p. 21, з 31, and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v.
France, No. 36677/97, зз 44 - 48, ECHR 2002-III). In particular,
the Court has consistently held that a "claim" - even to a
particular social benefit - can constitute a "possession" within
the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently
established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above,
з 40, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece,
judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A No. 301-B, p. 84, з 59).
(a) Judgment of 10 May 2000 as upheld on 22 June 2000
59. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes
that by virtue of the judgment of 10 May 2000 the town council was
to put at the applicant's disposal a flat with certain
characteristics. The judgment did not require the authorities to
give him ownership of a particular flat, but rather obliged them
to issue him with an occupancy voucher in respect of any flat
satisfying the court-defined criteria. On the basis of the
voucher, a so-called "social tenancy agreement" would have been
signed between the competent authority and the applicant, acting
as the principal tenant on behalf of himself and the members of
his family (see paragraph 33 above). Under the terms of a "social
tenancy agreement", as established in the RSFSR Housing Code and
the applicable regulations, the applicant would have had a right
to possess and make use of the flat and, under certain conditions,
to privatise it in accordance with the Privatisation of State
Housing Act.
60. Accordingly, from the moment the judgment of 10 May 2000
was issued, the applicant has had an established "legitimate
expectation" to acquire a pecuniary asset. The judgment was final
as no ordinary appeal lay against it, and enforcement proceedings
were instituted.
61. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant's claim
to a "social tenancy agreement" was sufficiently established to
constitute a "possession" falling within the ambit of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (see Teteriny v. Russia, No. 11931/03, зз 45 - 50,
30 June 2005).
62. Similarly to its finding in paragraph 52 above, having
regard to domestic courts' decisions granting the Town Council
deferments (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above), the Court considers
that the interference with the applicant's right to peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions by a delay of a year and a half in
the execution of the judgment in the circumstances was not such as
to have entailed an individual and excessive burden on the
applicant.
63. There has, therefore, been no violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
(b) Judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7 September 1999,
21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, and 16 May 2000
64. The judgments of 12 May 1999, 21 July 1999 and 16 May 2000
provided the applicant with an enforceable claim and not simply a
general right to receive support from the State. The judgments
became final on 25 May 1999, 5 October 1999 and 27 May 2000
respectively. It follows that the impossibility for the applicant
to have those judgments enforced for the periods of more than a
year and four months, two years and ten months and two years and
two months, accordingly, constituted an interference with his
right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as set forth in
the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1.
65. Not having found any justification for such an interference
(see paragraph 54 above), the Court concludes that there has
accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
66. 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
67. In so far as the judgments of 12 May 1999, 21 July 1999 and
16 May 2000 are concerned, the applicant claims 50,000 euros (EUR)
by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
68. The Government considered that should the Court find a
violation in this case that would in itself constitute sufficient
just satisfaction. They also contended that in any event the
applicant's claim was excessive and if the Court decided to make
an award it should comply with the amount awarded by the Court in
the Burdov v. Russia case.
69. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered
certain distress and frustration resulting from the State
authorities' failure to enforce judgments in his favour, which
cannot sufficiently be compensated by the finding of a violation.
However, the amount claimed appears excessive. The Court takes
into account the award it made in the case of Burdov v. Russia
(cited above, з 47), the nature and the amounts of the awards
whose non-enforcement was at issue in the present case, the delay
before the enforcement and other relevant aspects. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR
3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
70. The applicant sought reimbursement of his costs and
expenses incurred before domestic courts in the amount of EUR
2,000. However, he did not submit any receipts or other vouchers
in support of his claim. Accordingly, the Court does not make any
award under this head.
C. Default interest
71. 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. Dismisses the Government's preliminary objection;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 in respect of the
enforcement of the judgment of 10 May 2000 as upheld on 22 June
2000;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 in respect of the
enforcement of the judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7
September 1999, 21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, and 16
May 2000;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
according to Article 44 з 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three
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 that amount;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months
until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 November 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
|
