BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF STETSENKO AND STETSENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 878/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 October 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Stetsenko v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis,
President,
Mrs N. Vajić,
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 14 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application (no. 878/03)
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 two Russian nationals, Mr
Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Stetsenko and Mrs Nina Ivanovna Stetsenko
(“the applicants”), on 10 November 2002.
- The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On 5 September 2005 the Court decided to give notice of
the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29
§ 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The applicants were born in 1952 and 1956,
respectively, and live in the town of Voronezh.
- On 28 April 1999 the applicants sued the Savings Bank
for arrears and an increased interest on their savings deposited with
the bank.
- On 9 December 1999 and 21 November 2000 the Sovetskiy
District Court of Voronezh issued judgments. Both judgments were
quashed on appeal on 2 March 2000 and 15 February 2001, respectively,
and the case was remitted for a fresh examination by the District
Court.
- On 29 August 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court
dismissed the applicants' action. On 18 October 2001 the Voronezh
Regional Court, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment of 29 August
2001 and ordered re-examination of the case.
- On 18 December 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court partly
accepted the applicants' action, awarded the first applicant 9,350.10
Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 342 euros) and the second
applicant RUR 25,843.60 (approximately EUR 945) in arrears and
dismissed the remainder of their claims.
- On 5 March 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the
judgment of 18 December 2001 in the part concerning payment of
arrears, which accordingly became final, but remitted the remainder
of the claims for a new examination.
- The District Court issued writs of execution and on 20
March 2002 the applicants lodged the writs with bailiffs.
- On 29 April 2002 the President of the Voronezh
Regional Court lodged before the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional
Court an application for a supervisory review of the judgments of 18
October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002.
- A supervisory-review hearing was listed for 15 May
2002 and the applicants were summoned.
- The applicants arrived to the courthouse on 15 May
2002. They were invited to a courtroom and asked whether they
supported the application for a supervisory review. After the
applicants had objected to the review they were asked to leave the
courtroom.
- On 15 May 2002 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional
Court, by way of the supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the
judgments of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002
and upheld the judgment of 29 August 2001.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS
- The applicants complained that the act of quashing of
the judgments in their favour had violated their “right to a
court” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They also
complained that they were deprived of their right to effectively
participate at the supervisory-review hearing. The relevant part of
Article 6 of the Convention read as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time... by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Submissions by the parties
- The Government submitted that the Presidium of the
Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgments of 18 October and 18
December 2001 and 5 March 2002 with a view to correcting the
“judicial error” committed by the District and Regional
courts. It did not issue a new judgment but rather upheld the
“correct” judgment issued by the District Court on 29
August 2001. The Government lay special emphasis on the fact that the
supervisory-review proceedings had only been initiated two months
after the judgment of 5 March 2002 had been issued. They concluded
that there had been no violation of the applicants' right under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
- The applicants, relaying on the Court's findings in
the case of Ryabykh v. Russia (no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003 IX),
averred that the quashing of the final judgments in their case had
irremediably impaired the principle of legal certainty.
2. The Court's assessment
(a) General principles
- The Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing
before a tribunal as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention must be interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the
Convention, which declares, in its relevant part, the rule of law to
be part of the common heritage of the Contracting States. One of the
fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal
certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts
have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called
into question (see Brumărescu v. Romania, judgment of 28
October 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-VII, §
61).
- This principle insists that no party is entitled to
seek re-opening of the proceedings merely for the purpose of a
rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. Higher courts' power to
quash or alter binding and enforceable judicial decisions should be
exercised for correction of fundamental defects. The mere possibility
of two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination.
Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary
by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see,
mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §
52, ECHR 2003-X; and Pravednaya v. Russia,
no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004).
21. The Court reiterates that Article 6
§ 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 and binding judicial decision to be quashed by
a higher court on an application made by a State official whose power
to lodge such an application is not subject to any time-limit, with
the result that the judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely
(see Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 54-56).
(b) Application of the principles to the facts of the
case
- The Court observes that on 18 October 2001 the
Voronezh Regional Court, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment of
the District Court of 29 August 2001, by which the applicants'
action had been dismissed. A re-examination of the case was ordered.
On 18 December 2001, as a result of the new examination, the District
Court partly accepted the applicants' action and awarded them certain
sums in arrears. That part of the judgment of 18 December 2001
was upheld on appeal on 5 March 2002 and, accordingly, became final
and binding. In April 2002 the President of the Voronezh Regional
Court lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgments
of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002. On 15 May
2002 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the
judgments of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002 as
erroneous and upheld the judgment of 29 August 2001.
- The Court has found a violation of an applicant's
“right to a court” guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention in many cases in which a judicial decision that had
become final and binding, was subsequently quashed by a higher court
on an application by a State official whose power to intervene was
not subject to any time-limit (see Roseltrans v. Russia,
no. 60974/00, §§ 27-28, 21 July 2005; Volkova
v. Russia, no. 48758/99, §§ 34-36, 5
April 2005; and Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51-56).
- Having examined the materials submitted to it, the
Court observes that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in
the present case. The fact, that a judgment was set aside just two
months after it had become final and binding, does not make the
present case different from the aforementioned cases. Accordingly,
the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention in respect of the quashing of the final and binding
judgments given in the applicants' case.
(c) Supervisory
review procedure: procedural issues
- With regard to the complaint
about the procedural defects of the hearing before the Presidium of
the Voronezh Regional Court, the Court finds that, having concluded
that there has been an infringement of the applicants' “right
to a court” by the very use of the supervisory review
procedure, it is not necessary to consider whether the procedural
guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention were available in those
proceedings (cf. Ryabykh, cited above, § 59,
and Volkova v. Russia, no. 48758/99, § 39, 5 April
2005).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The applicants complained that the proceedings in
their case had been excessively long. The Court considers that this
complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, which is cited above.
- The Court observes that the proceedings in the present
case commenced on 28 April 1999 and ended on 15 May 2002 with the
judgment of the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court. The
proceedings thus lasted approximately three years before courts of
three levels of jurisdiction.
- Having regard to the proceedings as a whole, the Court
finds that they did not exceed a “reasonable time” within
the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that
this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly, the applicants complained that the above court
proceedings had been unfair as the courts had misinterpreted domestic
law and had incorrectly assessed the facts of the case and the
judges, including those sitting in the Presidium of the Voronezh
Regional Court, had not been independent and impartial. However,
having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far
that the complaints are not covered in the Court's finding above (see
paragraph 25), it finds that these complaints do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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
- The first applicant claimed RUR 15,327.65 and the
second applicant claimed RUR 42,360.16 in respect of pecuniary
damage. These sums represented the principle amounts due to them
under the judicial decisions of 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002 and
interest thereon. They also claimed EUR 5,000 to be paid to each of
them in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government argued that there was no causal link
between the violation found and the damage alleged. In any event, the
claims were unreasonable and excessive.
- As regards the claims in respect of pecuniary damage,
the Court, having regard to the nature of the violation found,
considers it appropriate to award the applicants the sums which they
would have received had the judgments in their favour not been
quashed (see paragraph 8 above). Moreover, some pecuniary loss must
have been occasioned on account of the period that elapsed from the
time the judicial decisions had become enforceable until the Court's
award (see Grinberg v. Russia, no. 23472/03, § 39,
21 July 2005). The applicants' assessment of that loss does not
appear excessive or unreasonable. In any event, the Government did
not suggest a different method of calculation of interest.
Accordingly, the Court awards the first applicant EUR 450 and the
second applicant EUR 1,250 in respect of the pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts.
- The Court further considers that the applicants
suffered distress and frustration resulting from the quashing of the
judicial decisions by way of supervisory-review proceedings.
Nevertheless, the amounts claimed are excessive. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards each of the
applicants EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax
that may be chargeable on the above amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
- The first applicant claimed RUR 850 for postage and
copying expenses, RUR 3,000 for legal expenses in the Strasbourg
proceedings and RUR 2,500 for translation expenses. The second
applicant did not submit any claim in this respect.
- The Government argued that the claims in respect of
legal and translation expenses should be dismissed because Mrs R. who
had provided the first applicant with legal and translation services
had not included the sums paid to her in her tax declaration.
- 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, the
first applicant submitted a copy of the contract with Mrs R. which
listed, in a detailed manner, letters of the Registry which Mrs R.
had translated. The first applicant also submitted a copy of the
contract with Mrs R. for provision of legal consultations in the
course of the Strasbourg proceedings. The Government did not dispute
the fact that Mrs R. had provided the first applicant with legal and
translation services. The contracts between the first applicant and
Mrs R. had not been declared null and void by any court. They were
enforceable under the Russian law and bound the first applicant to
pay the amounts indicated therein. The sums indicated in the
contracts do not appear excessive or unreasonable. The first
applicant also submitted documents supporting his claims in respect
of postal and copying expenses. Regard being had to the information
in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the
first applicant the sum of EUR 185, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on the above amount.
- The Court considers that there is no call to award the
second applicant anything under this head.
C. Default interest
- 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
- Declares the complaint concerning the quashing
of the final judgments of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March
2002 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the final judgments
of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002 by way
of supervisory review;
- Holds that it is not necessary to consider the
allegation of procedural unfairness of the supervisory-review
proceedings;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the first
applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 450 (four hundred and fifty euros) in respect of
pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 185 (one hundred and eighty-five euros) in respect of costs
and expenses;
(iv) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that the respondent State is to pay the second
applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,250 (one thousand two hundred and fifty euros)
in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(c) 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
