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 PORTNOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 34428/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29
April 2008
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 Portnova v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
judges,
and
André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 April 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 34428/04) 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 Lidiya Ivanovna Portnova
(“the applicant”), on 16 July 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, the former
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
29 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 1952 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in
the Voronezh Region.
- The
applicant was entitled to a disability allowance and commodity
benefits. She sued the local Social Security Committee for the
unpaid allowance and benefits, and claimed their re-adjustment.
A. Case no. 1
- By
judgment of 16 July 2003, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh
Region awarded the applicant 22,109.75 Russian roubles (RUB) for the
period from 1 July 2002 to 31 July 2003. On 14 October 2003 the
Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant received
the money due to her on 7 June 2005. On 5 September 2005 the
Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 5,552.02 as compensation
for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the
judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October 2003. It appears
that the compensation award has not been paid to the applicant.
B. Cases nos. 2, 3 and 4
- By
judgment of 5 January 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant
RUB 13,971.25 for the period from 1 August to 31 December
2003. This judgment became final on 15 January 2004. It was
enforced on 4 August 2005.
- On
15 April 2004 the Town Court increased the applicant's monthly
allowance to RUB 5,664.84 and awarded her RUB 9,494.52 in
arrears for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2004. The judgment
became final on 26 April 2004. It was enforced on 25 August 2005.
- On
30 September 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.52.
On 11 October 2004 the judgment became final. The applicant received
the money on 25 August 2005.
- By
judgment of 15 November 2005, the Town Court awarded RUB 5,700.35
as compensation for inflationary losses in respect of the sums
awarded to the applicant on 5 January, 15 April and 30 September
2004. It appears that the compensation award has not been paid to the
applicant.
C. Case no. 5
- By
judgment of 16 February 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant
RUB 4,973.57. The judgment became final on 26 February 2004.
Apparently, it remains without enforcement.
D. Case no. 6
- On
6 September 2004 the Town Court awarded RUB 2,272.30 to the applicant
and increased her monthly commodity benefits to RUB 679.78. The
judgment became final on 17 September 2004. It appears that on
16 July 2004 the applicant received RUB 500 in execution of that
judgment.
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 judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld
on 14 October 2003, and the judgments of 5 January, 16 February, 15
April, 6 and 30 September 2004 were not 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 observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the
applicant was awarded compensation for the delays in enforcement of
the judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October 2003, and the
judgments of 5 January, 15 April and 30 September 2004 (see
paragraphs 6 and 10 above). The Court does not exclude that such
compensation awards could constitute redress of the State's previous
failure to comply with the judgments in the applicant's favour,
provided that those awards have been paid in full and within a
reasonable time. However, the Government did not adduce any evidence
showing that those awards had been paid to the applicant at
all. Accordingly, the Court considers that the applicant may
still claim to be a “victim” in respect of her complaint
about the delays in enforcement of the above-mentioned judgments.
- As regards the judgment of 30 September 2004, the
Court observes, and it is not in dispute between the parties, that it
became final on 11 October 2004 and was enforced in full on 25
August 2005. The delay in its enforcement was thus slightly more than
ten months, which, in the Court's view, does not appear excessive
(see Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July
2004; Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02,
10 November 2005; Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02,
31 May 2007). Accordingly, this part of the application must be
rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
- On
the other hand, the Court concludes that the applicant's complaint
about the delays in enforcement of the judgment of 16 July 2003, as
upheld on 14 October 2003, and the judgments of 5 January,
16 February, 15 April and 6 September 2004 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. This part of the application must therefore be
declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government submitted that the judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on
14 October 2003, and the judgments of 5 January and 15 April
2004 had been enforced in full; the judgment of 6 September 2004
had been enforced in part, and the judgment of 16 February 2004
had not been enforced.
- The
applicant argued that RUB 17,063.87 had remained unpaid to her under
the judgments of 16 February and 6 September 2004.
- The
Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the
judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October 2003, and the
judgments of 5 January and 15 April 2004 were enforced in full
in June and August 2005. Thus, the delays in their enforcement varied
from approximately sixteen to twenty months.
- Having
regard to the material in its possession, the Court concludes that
the judgments of 16 February and 6 September 2004 remain, in
full or in part, 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, among others, Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 33-38,
ECHR 2002 III; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02,
§ 35 et seq., 18 November 2004, and
Glushakova v. Russia (no. 1), no. 38719/03,
§§ 33-37, 12 April 2007).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have 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 long periods of time, to comply with the enforceable
judgments 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 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 56 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage in
relation to the delay in enforcement of the judgments of 16 February
and 6 September 2004, and the sums outstanding under the compensatory
awards of 5 September and 15 November 2005. She also claimed EUR
6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant should have raised her
pecuniary claim before national courts.
- The
Court has previously examined and rejected the Government's argument
to this effect (see, among others, Gridin v. Russia,
no. 4171/04, § 43, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v.
Russia, no. 28957/02, § 80, 24 May 2007). It sees
no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having
regard to the material in its possession and to the fact that the
Government did not object to the applicant's method of calculation,
the Court accepts the applicant's claim and awards her under this
head EUR 56.
- The
Court also notes that the State's unfulfilled obligation to enforce
the judgments, which have not been enforced in full, is not in
dispute in the present case (see paragraph 20 above). The Court
therefore considers that the Government shall secure, by
appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgments of 16 February
and 6 September 2004. As regards the judgments
which have been enforced with substantial delays, the Court considers
that the Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the
enforcement of the compensatory awards of 5 September and 15 November
2005 (see paragraph 14 above).
- Finally,
the Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress
and frustration resulting from the authorities' failure to enforce in
good time the judgments in her favour. Taking into account the length
of the enforcement proceedings, the number of the domestic awards and
their nature, and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court awards the applicant EUR 3,100 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 complaint concerning the delays in
enforcement of the judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October
2003, and the judgments of 5 January, 16 February, 15 April and
6 September 2004 admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- 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 on 16 February,
6 September 2004, 5 September and 15 November
2005;
(b) that
the respondent State shall 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 3,100
(three thousand one hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, and EUR
56 (fifty-six euros) in respect of pecuniary damage, both sums to be
converted into Russian roubles 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 applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 April 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
