EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF PARKHOMOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 19589/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 20.X.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 Parkhomov 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 29 September 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 19589/02) 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, Aleksandr
Aleksandrovich Parkhomov ("the applicant"), on 16 April 2002.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr K. Krakovskiy, a lawyer
practising in Rostov-on-Don. 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 4 December 2003 the Court decided to communicate the
complaint concerning non-enforcement of court judgments dated 4
December 1998, 11 March 1999, 27 April 2000 and 29 November 2002
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 1959 and lives in the village of
Sorgovyy in the Zernogradksiy District of the Rostov Region.
5. In 1988 the applicant took part in a rescue operation on the
site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Since late 1993 the
applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this
connection.
1. First set of proceedings
6. On 4 December 1998 the Zernogradskyy District Court of the
Rostov Region ("the District Court") granted the applicant's claim
against a local pension authority ("the authority") and recovered
RUR 40,361.07 of unpaid social benefits.
7. The judgment was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court ("the
Regional Court") and came into force on 20 January 1999.
8. On 25 February 1999 the bailiffs brought enforcement
proceedings against the authority in this respect.
9. The money due pursuant to the judgment of 4 December 1998
was paid to the applicant in full on 11 May 2002 which is three
years, three months and twenty two days later.
2. Second set of proceedings
10. By judgment of 11 March 1999 the District Court examined
and granted the applicant's new claim against the authority for
unpaid benefits. It ordered a one-time payment of RUR 2,360.44 and
monthly payments of RUR 2,886.43 from 1 February 1999 onwards in
the applicant's favour. The court also ordered the authority to
index-link the future monthly payments.
11. The judgment was upheld by the Regional Court on 21 April
1999. On the same day it came into force.
12. According to the Government, the one-time payment of RUR
2,360.44 in the applicant's favour was made on 1 June 2002 which
is three years, one month and ten days after the entry into force
of the judgment of 11 March 1999. As regards the monthly payments
which were due as of 1 February 1999, they were paid on 29 June
2002 by a single instalment of RUR 94,508.04 covering the period
between 1 February 1999 and 1 July 2002. It appears that starting
from 1 July 2002 the payments have been made fully and on time.
3. Third set of proceedings
13. On an unspecified date the applicant again sued the
authority for unpaid social benefits. By judgment of 27 April 2000
the District Court granted the claim and recovered an outstanding
debt of RUR 92,122.44 and monthly payments of RUR 4,881.61 from 1
November 1999. By the same judgment the court ordered the
authority to index-link future payments in line with a minimum
monthly wage.
14. The parties did not appeal against the judgment of 27 April
2000 and it came into force on 7 May 2000.
15. The one-time payment of RUR 92,122.44 in the applicant's
favour was made on 11 May 2002 which is two years and four days
after the entry into force of the judgment of 27 April 2000. The
Government submitted that the authority had fully enforced the
judgment of 27 April 2000.
4. Fourth set of proceedings
16. On 29 November 2002 the District Court awarded damages in
the applicant's favour and recovered compensation of RUR
207,201.56 for the delays in execution of the judgments in the
above three sets of proceedings.
17. This decision was upheld by the Regional Court on 25
December 2002 and enforced in full by a bank transfer of 22 April
2004 which is one year, four months and twenty-eight days after
its entry into force.
5. Fifth set of proceedings
18. On an unspecified date the applicant brought a fresh set of
court proceedings against the authority. He alleged that the
remainder of the judgment of 27 April 2000 had not been enforced
to date, that the minimum monthly wage in Russia had been
increased five times, on 1 July 2000, 1 January and 1 July 2001, 1
May 2002 and 1 October 2003, that the amount of his monthly
payments had been increased but once during the same period, that
the coefficient used had been lower than it should have been and
demanded damages in this connection.
19. According to the Government, by judgment of 3 September
2004 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as
unfounded.
20. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on
13 October 2004.
II. Relevant domestic law
Execution of a judgment
21. 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.
22. 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
23. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement
of the judgments taken on 4 December 1998, 11 March 1999, 27 April
2000 and 29 November 2002 respectively 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 guaranteed in
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in
so far as relevant provide 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
24. The Government submitted that the judgments in question had
been enforced. They asserted that the applicant was no longer a
victim of the violations alleged as he had been afforded redress
at the national level and that his application should be declared
inadmissible.
25. The applicant disagreed with the Government's arguments and
maintained his complaints. As regards the loss of the victim
status, he submitted that the judgment of 27 April 2000 remained
non-enforced in part relating to indexation of the applicant's
monthly compensation in line with the minimum monthly wage.
26. The Court, firstly, reiterates that "a decision or measure
favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to
deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national
authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance,
and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention" (see
Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments
and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, з 36, Dalban v. Romania [GC], No.
28114/95, з 44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], No.
28341/95, з 35, ECHR 2000-V). Only when these conditions are
satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism
of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see, for
example, Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), No. 52620/99, 20
March 2003).
27. At the outset the Court observes in respect of the
applicant's allegation that the judgment of 27 April 2000 has not
been enforced to date that by judgment of 3 September 2004 and
decision of 13 October 2004 the domestic courts examined this
claim and rejected it as unsubstantiated. The Court further
recalls that it falls, as a general rule, for the domestic
authorities to interpret the domestic law and establish the facts.
In the absence of any complaints by the applicant about the
fairness of those proceedings and any indication to the contrary
in the case-file, the Court concludes that the judgment of 27
April 2000 has been fully enforced.
28. The Court next observes that after a few years of the
authorities' failure to make regular payments in respect of
judgments dated 4 December 1998, 11 March 1999 and 27 April 2000
the applicant brought a new successful set of proceedings seeking
damages for the delays. Had the judgment of 29 November 2002 taken
in this latter set of proceedings been timeously enforced, it
could arguably have deprived the applicant of his victim status in
respect of the State's previous failure to comply with the
judgments. However, the judgment of 29 November 2002 remained
inoperative for another year, four months and twenty-eight days.
29. The Court notes that the mere fact that the authorities
complied with the judgments after substantial delays cannot be
viewed in this case as automatically depriving the applicant of
his victim status under the Convention. Therefore it is unable to
conclude that the Government or other domestic authorities have
acknowledged the violations alleged by the applicant and provided
redress for them and thus deprived him of the victim status (see,
e.g., Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, з 16, 24 February 2005).
30. 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
31. The Government submitted that in view of the fact that the
decisions in question had been enforced there has been no
violation of the applicant's Convention rights.
32. The applicant maintained his complaints.
33. The Court notes that the judgments of 4 December 1998, 11
March 1999, 27 April 2000 and 29 November 2002 remained
inoperative for the periods ranging from one year, four months and
twenty-eight days to three years, three months and twenty two
days. No justification was advanced by the Government for these
delays.
34. 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).
35. 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 judgments in the applicant's favour the domestic
authorities prevented him from receiving the money which he was
entitled to receive under final and binding judgments.
36. 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
37. Insofar as the applicant is dissatisfied with the amount of
the court's award in the third set of proceedings, the Court
recalls that, in principle, it is not called upon to examine the
alleged errors of law and fact committed by the domestic judicial
authorities, insofar as no unfairness of the proceedings can be
detected (see, e.g., Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), No. 42095/98,
11.01.2000). In the proceedings at issue the domestic courts at
two levels of jurisdiction carefully examined the materials in
their possession and reached reasoned conclusions as to the merits
of the applicant's claim. Throughout the proceedings the applicant
was fully able to state his case and contest the evidence that he
considered false. Moreover, the Court observes that, in principle,
it cannot substitute itself for the national authorities in
assessing or reviewing the level of financial benefits available
under a social assistance scheme (see Pancenko v. Latvia (dec.),
No. 40772/98, 28.10.1999 and Larioshina v. Russia (dec.), No.
56869/00, 23.04.2002).
38. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the
Convention. Accordingly, it must be rejected pursuant to Article
35 з 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
39. 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
40. The applicant claimed RUR 35,067.29 to be paid monthly as
of 1 April 2004 with further indexation, compensation for
pecuniary damage of EUR 19,362.84 and compensation for non-
pecuniary damage of EUR 7,300.
41. The Government considered these claims excessive.
42. The Court does not discern any causal link between the
violation found and the extensive amount of the pecuniary damage
alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the
Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress because of the
State authorities' failure timely and fully to enforce the
judgments in question. However, the amounts claimed in respect of
non-pecuniary damage appear excessive. Having regard to the award
made in the Burdov v. Russia case (cited above, з 47) and such
factors as the applicant's age, the length of the enforcement
proceedings, and other relevant aspects, and deciding on an
equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 5,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
43. 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
44. 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 complaint concerning the delays in execution of
the judgments in the applicant's favour admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 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
according to Article 44 з 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000 (five
thousand euros) to be converted into Russian roubles on the date
of settlement in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 October 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
|
