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 VYDRINA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 35824/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 March
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 Vydrina v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
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 8 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 35824/04) 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, Ms Lyudmila Aleksandrovna
Vydrina (“the applicant”), on 17 September 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
18 November 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the non-enforcement of a final judgment in the applicant's
favour 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Voronezh.
- In
2000 she brought a court action against the social security service
of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District of Voronezh and the Financial
Division of the Voronezh Regional administration for delays in
payment of child support benefits.
- On
3 February 2000 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh
granted the applicant's claim and awarded her 1,919.53 Russian
roubles. The judgment entered into force on 14 February 2000.
- Enforcement
proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because
the Voronezh Regional administration lacked necessary funds.
- On
13 February 2006 the judgment of 3 February 2000 was enforced in
full.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the prolonged non-enforcement of
the judgment of 3 February 2000. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as
follows:
Article 6 § 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
- 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 acknowledged that the judgment of 3 February 2000
was not enforced in good time. They further conceded that the
applicant's rights set out in Article 6 of the Convention and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 were violated as a result of the non-enforcement
of the final judgment.
- The
applicant maintained her claims.
- The
Court observes that the judgment in the applicant's favour remained
unenforced for several years. No justification was advanced by the
Government who acknowledged a violation of the Convention.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising similar
issues to the ones in the present case (see, among other authorities,
Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court sees no reason for
reaching 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 impaired the essence of her right to
a court and prevented her from receiving the money she had reasonably
expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 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 50,000 US dollars in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the applicant's claims as excessive and
unjustified. They considered that should the Court find a violation
in this case that would in itself constitute sufficient just
satisfaction.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and
frustration resulting from the State authorities' failure to execute
a final judicial decision in her favour, and that this cannot be
sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. However,
the amount claimed by the applicant appears excessive. The Court
takes into account the award it made in the case of Burdov
(cited above, § 14), the nature of the award at stake in the
present case, the length of the enforcement proceedings and other
relevant aspects. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it
awards the applicant 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not claim reimbursement of her costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on
this account.
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 to the
Convention;
- 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 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000
(three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 March 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
