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 ALEKSANDR ZHUKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 35760/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
December 2007
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 Aleksandr Zhukov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni,
judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 35760/04) 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, Mr Aleksandr Mitrofanovich
Zhukov (“the applicant”), on 3 September 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms S. Poznakhirina, an NGO expert
practising in Novovoronezh. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
31 May 2006 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
applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in
the Voronezh Region.
- He
sued the local Social Security Committee for unpaid allowances.
- By
judgment of 24 August 2000, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the
Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 2,602.39 Russian roubles (RUB).
The judgment became final on 4 September 2000. The applicant received
the monies on 2 December 2005.
- On
1 July 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 19,315.50.
On 2 September 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment.
The applicant received the monies on 9 June 2005.
- By
judgment of 5 April 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB
4,973.57. The judgment became final on 15 April 2004. It appears that
it remains without enforcement.
- On
the same day, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 16,765.50
and adjusted his monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.84. On 15 April
2004 the judgment became final. According to the Government, the
applicant received the monies on 25 August 2005. However, they did
not submit any evidence or documents in that respect. The applicant
submitted that he had not received the monies.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 that the judgments of 24 August 2000 and 1
July 2003 and two judgments of 5 April 2004 had not been enforced in
good time. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time... 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...”
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the application 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
- The
Government submitted that the judgments of 24 August 2000, 1 July
2003 and the judgment of 5 April 2004, by which the applicant had
been awarded RUB 16,765.50, had been enforced in full. The judgment
of 5 April 2004, by which the applicant had been awarded RUB
4,973.57, had not been enforced.
- The
applicant argued that the judgments of 5 April 2004 had remained
without enforcement.
- The
Court notes, and it is not in dispute between the parties, that the
judgments of 24 August 2000 and 1 July 2003 were enforced in full in
2005. Thus, they remained without enforcement for more than five
years, and one year and nine months, respectively.
- Having
regard to the material in its possession, the Court finds that both
judgments of 5 April 2004 remain without enforcement.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues
similar to the ones in the present case (see Burdov v.
Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002 III;
Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq.,
18 November 2004; and Gerasimova v.
Russia, no. 24669/02, § 17 et
seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by
failing, for long periods of time, to comply with the enforceable
judgments in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities impaired
the essence of his right to a court and prevented him from receiving
the money he could reasonably have expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. 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
applicant claimed 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 965 in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the
unpaid monies awarded by the judgments of 5 April 2004.
- The
Government submitted that no compensation in respect of pecuniary
damage should be awarded because the judgments in the applicant's
favour had been enforced in full. They considered that the
applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive.
- As
to the pecuniary claim, the Court considers that the Government shall
secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the domestic
awards which have remained without enforcement to date (see paragraph
15 above).
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the authorities' failure to
enforce in good time the judgments in his favour. Taking into account
the length of the enforcement proceedings, the number of the awards
and their nature, and making its assessment on an equitable basis,
the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any claims under this head and the Court
accordingly makes no award in respect of costs and expenses.
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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the
enforcement of the awards made by the domestic court by the judgments
of 5 April 2004;
(b) 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 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,900
(three thousand nine hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
on the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
that amount;
(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 applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 December 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Loukis Loucaides
Registrar President
