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 KOZYYAKOVA AND GUREYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 16108/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 April
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 Kozyyakova and Gureyev 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 29 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 16108/06) 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, Mrs Lyudmila Ivanovna
Kozyyakova and Mr Vladimir Tikhonovich Gureyev (“the
applicants”), on 10 March 2006. The second
applicant died on 1 January 2007 and his daughter, Mrs
Lyudmila Vladimirovna Manukovskaya, has decided to pursue the
application. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr
I. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practising in Voronezh.
- The
Russian Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Represenative of
the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
22 June 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
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1925 and lived in Voronezh.
A. Court proceedings
- At
the relevant time the applicants were in receipt of a pension from
the pension authority (“the authority”, Комитет
по социальной
защите
населения
администрации
Железнодорожного
района
г. Воронежа).
- It
appears that in 1998 and 1999 there were delays in payment of their
pension and in 2000 the applicants brought a court claim against the
authority in this connection.
- By
judgments of 17 and 20 July 2000 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court
of the town of Voronezh granted the applicants' claims and ordered
the authority to pay the first applicant 1,109.36 roubles (RUR –
approximately 42 euros) in damages. The second applicant was
granted a compensation of RUR 1,355.46 (approximately 53 euros).
- The
judgments came into force on 27 and 31 July 2000 respectively.
B. Enforcement proceedings
- On
an unspecified date the District Court issued the writs of
enforcement and directed them to the bailiffs for enforcement.
- According
to the applicants, in April 2001 the bailiffs returned the writs
without enforcement with reference to the lack of funds.
- It
appears that the court award in respect of the first applicant was
enforced on 7 December 2005. As regards the second applicant, the
award was received on 9 December 2005.
- According
to the Government, the awards in respect of both applicants were
enforced in full on 6 December 2005.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- 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 shall
fix a time-limit for the defendant's voluntary compliance with the
writ of execution. The time-limit cannot exceed five days. The
bailiff shall also warn the defendant that coercive action will
follow, should the defendant fail to comply within the time-limit.
- Under Section 13 of the Law, the
enforcement proceedings should be completed within two months upon
receipt of the writ of enforcement by the bailiff.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND 1
OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of
the court judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in so far as
relevant, provide 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
Government accepted that there had been a delay in the enforcement of
the court awards in favour of the applicants and acknowledged that
there had been a breach of the mentioned Convention provisions.
- The
applicants' counsel maintained their complaints.
- 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
Court first notes that the judgments in the applicants' favour dated
17 and 20 July 2000 respectively remained without enforcement at
least until 6 December 2005, i.e. for a period of more than five
years and four months.
- The Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in many 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 v. Russia,
no.
36494/02, 24 February 2005, or Poznakhirina v. Russia, no.
25964/02, 24 February 2005).
- Having
noted the Government's acknowledgement that there has been a
violation of the said Convention provisions and in view of its
case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing for such
substantial periods to comply with the enforceable judgments in the
applicants' favour the domestic authorities prevented them from
receiving the money which they were entitled to receive under final
and binding judgments.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 of the
Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of both applicants.
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
applicants each claimed 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage. They also requested the Court to award them 1,197.62 and
1,463.21 Russian roubles (RUR) respectively as regards the inflation
losses. Finally, the applicants claimed penalty payments of
RUR 1,774.47 and 2168.12, respectively.
- The
Government considered that the claims in respect of non-pecuniary
damage were excessive and unreasonable. They made no comments as
regards the applicants' alleged inflationary losses.
- The
Court accepts that the applicants suffered inflationary losses as a
result of the delayed execution of the judgments in their favour and
awards the first applicant RUR 1,197.62 and the second applicant RUR
1,463.21 in this respect. As regards the non-pecuniary damage, the
Court finds that the applicants have suffered some non-pecuniary
damage as a result of the violation found which cannot be compensated
by the mere finding of a violation. Nevertheless, the amount claimed
is excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as
required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards each
applicant the sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 40 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government submitted that no award should be made under this head.
- Regard
being had to the information in its possession and the Government's
submissions, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the applicants
jointly EUR 40 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
Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the following amounts, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention:
(i) to
the first applicant RUR 1,197.62 (one thousand one hundred and
ninety-seven roubles sixty-two kopecks) in respect of pecuniary
damage and EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) to
the second applicant's daughter RUR 1,463.21 (one thousand four
hundred and sixty-three roubles twenty-one kopecks) in respect of
pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) to
the first applicant and the second applicant's daughter jointly
EUR 40 (forty euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iv) any
tax that may be chargeable on these amounts;
(b) that
the amounts awarded in euros shall be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement;
(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 26 April 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
