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 VIKTOR PETROV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 15890/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 July
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 Viktor Petrov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and
Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 July 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 15890/04) 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 Viktor Mikhailovich
Petrov (“the applicant”), on 15 March 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mrs V. Milinchuk, the Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
26 March 2007 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
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Pskov, a town in the Pskov
Region.
- As
a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to social benefits.
Considering himself underpaid, he brought six successful actions
against local authorities responsible for welfare.
- On
13 August 2002 the Pskov Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic
benefits. This judgment became binding on 24 September 2002.
According to the Government, this judgment was fully enforced by
31 December 2006. According to the applicant, this judgment has
still not been enforced, because from 1 January 2007 the periodic
benefits were reduced again.
- On
11 June 2003 the Town Court awarded 15,000 Russian roubles (“RUB”)
as interest for delayed payment. This judgment became binding on
15 July 2003. On the welfare authority’s request, on 20
February 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the
judgment on supervisory review, on the ground of misapplication of
material law.
- On
21 July 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Court District 31 of Pskov
awarded RUB 3,000 as interest for delayed payment. This judgment
became binding on 9 October 2003. On the welfare authority’s
request, on 14 May 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional
Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review, on the ground of
misapplication of material law.
- On
28 October 2003 the Town Court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount
of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on
10 November 2003. According to the Government, this
judgment was fully enforced by 31 December 2005. According to
the applicant, this judgment has still not been enforced, because the
periodic payments continue to be miscalculated.
- On
29 December 2003 the Town Court awarded compensation of inflationary
loss caused by the delayed enforcement of an earlier judgment. This
judgment became binding on 9 January 2004 and was enforced on
8 July 2005.
- On
1 June 2005 the Town Court ordered the applicant to be provided in
2005 with a decent flat of at least 65 m². This judgment became
final on 15 June 2005 and was enforced on 29 December 2006.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months. Under
section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of
Finance must enforce a judgment within three months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
NON-ENFORCEMENT
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments
of 13 August 2002, 28 October 2003, 29 December 2003, and 1 June
2005. Insofar as relevant, these Articles 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
Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. Any delay in
the enforcement of the judgment of 13 August 2002 had been caused by
the workings of the federal budget. The authorities had not idled;
they had paid the award as soon as funds had become available. The
other three judgments had been enforced within a reasonable time. The
applicant had abused his right of petition, because he had
impertinently accused the authorities of falsity.
- The
applicant argued that this complaint was admissible. The judgments of
13 August 2002 and 28 October 2003 had not been fully enforced. The
other judgments had not been enforced within a reasonable time.
- 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
- The
Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement
of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR
2002 III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will
look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the
applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the
award was (see Raylyan
v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31,
15 February 2007).
- The
enforcement of the judgment of 13 August 2002 lasted four years and
three months (or longer, given the applicant’s allegation that
his periodic payments continue to be miscalculated). The enforcement
of the judgment of 28 October 2003 lasted two years and one month (or
longer, given the applicant’s allegation that his periodic
payments continue to be miscalculated). The enforcement of the
judgment of 29 December 2003 lasted one year and five months. The
enforcement of the judgment of 1 June 2005 lasted one year and six
months.
- In
the circumstances of the present case, and given the nature of the
awards (benefits to a victim of Chernobyl), these periods were
incompatible with the requirements of the Convention.
- There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT
- The
applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had
no effective domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of the
judgments. Article 13 reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. The applicant
had had an opportunity to complain about the welfare authority’s
failure to enforce the judgments to a court, a prosecutor, or other
competent agencies.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint. He indicated that the Court had
many times before found a violation of Article 13 in similar
circumstances.
- 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
- The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for a prolonged non-enforcement of a
binding judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudła v.
Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
- The Government have not,
however, specified how recourse to a court, a prosecutor, or other
competent agencies would have provided preventive or compensatory
relief against the non-enforcement. Nor have the Government given an
example from domestic practice of a successful application of those
remedies (see Kudła, cited
above, § 159).
- It
follows that there has been a violation of Article 13.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
SUPERVISORY REVIEW
- The
applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the supervisory review of the
judgments of 11 June 2003 and 21 July 2003.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible.
The
supervisory-review procedure had been an integral part of the Russian
legal system. According to the Constitutional Court, the elimination
of the supervisory-review procedure could have produced a procedural
vacuum, disrupted civil adjudication, and threatened the basic
function of the judiciary – the restoration of breached rights.
In
the present case, the courts had reached a fair balance between the
requirements of legal certainty and justice. In particular, the
supervisory review had come after an ordinary appeal; only one
supervisory-review court had been engaged; the supervisory review had
happened promptly (less than a year after the judgments had become
binding); the supervisory review had been initiated by a party to the
proceedings; the judgments had been quashed in order to correct a
misapplication of material law.
Annulment
of binding judgments was legitimate in a
democratic society and known, for example, to such countries as
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Besides, the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe had been satisfied that
Russia’s supervisory-review procedure had been improved
(ResDH(2006)1, 8 February 2006; CM/Inf/DH(2005)20, 23 March 2005).
- The
applicant insisted that his complaint was admissible. He cited a
number of the Court’s cases, arguing that a misapplication of
material law had not justified supervisory review.
- 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
- The
Court has earlier found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 where, like in the present case, supervisory
review was used to quash a binding judgment on the ground of an
alleged misinterpretation of material law (see,
for example, Kot v. Russia,
no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). There is
no reason to depart from that finding in the present case.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF SUPERVISORY REVIEW
- The
applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had
no effective domestic remedy against the supervisory review of the
judgments.
- 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.
- However,
having found above that the supervisory review breached the
applicant’s substantive rights under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers
that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint about
the absence of effective remedies with regard to the proceedings
begot by that supervisory review (see Sitkov v. Russia,
no. 55531/00, § 39, 18 January 2007).
V. 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 1,800 euros (“EUR”) in respect of
pecuniary damage and EUR 20,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
He also asked the Court to oblige the Government to enforce the
judgment of 13 August 2002.
- The
Government argued that no award should be made, because the judgments
in the applicant’s favour had been fully enforced, and because
the applicant had failed to substantiate his non-pecuniary damage.
- As
to pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement, the Court
reiterates that the violation found is best redressed by putting the
applicant in the position he would have been if the Convention had
been respected. The Government shall therefore secure, by appropriate
means, the enforcement of any outstanding awards (see,
with further references, Poznakhirina
v. Russia, no. 25964/02, §
33, 24 February 2005).
- As
to pecuniary damage caused by the supervisory review, the Court
considers that the violation found with regard
to supervisory review is best redressed by putting the applicant in
the position he would have been if the Convention had been respected.
It is therefore appropriate to award the applicant the equivalent in
euros of the sums that he would have received if the judgments of 11
June 2003 and 21 July 2003 had not been quashed (see Bolyukh
v. Russia, no. 19134/05, § 39, 31 July 2007).
The Court awards EUR 500 in this respect.
- As
to non-pecuniary damage, the Court accepts that the applicant may
have been distressed by the non-enforcement and supervisory review of
the binding judgments. Making its assessment on an equitable basis,
the Court awards EUR 5,500 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed RUB 1,815.69 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court.
- The
Government argued that this claim was unsubstantiated.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 50 for the
proceedings before the Court.
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 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of non-enforcement;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention on account of non-enforcement;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of the supervisory-review quashing of a final judgment;
- Holds that there is no need to examine the
complaint under Article 13 of the Convention on account of the
supervisory-review quashing of a final judgment;
- 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 any outstanding awards made by the domestic court,
and in addition pay the following amounts, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 500 (five hundred euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 5,500 (five thousand five
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 50 (fifty euros), plus
any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs
and expenses;
(b) 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 24 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
