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 ANDREYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 73659/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 April 2012
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 Andreyeva v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia
Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 20 March 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 73659/10) 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 Mariya Mikhaylovna
Andreyeva (“the applicant”), on 25 November 2010. The
President of the Chamber granted her leave to represent herself.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that she had been unable to obtain
any payment from the State on Soviet bonds of a 1982 issue belonging
to her.
- On
17 March 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. It
was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1918 and lives in St Petersburg.
- The
applicant holds a number of premium bonds issued in 1982 (“the
1982 USSR bonds”, облигации
Государственного
внутреннего
выигрышного
займа 1982 года).
She deposited them in 1986 with Sberbank (“the Savings Bank”
– Сбербанк
России).
- In
December 1991 the USSR was dissolved. In February 1992 the Government
of Russia acknowledged that the 1982 USSR bonds held by Russian
nationals were a part of its internal debt. Later that year the
Russian Government proposed a settlement to the holders of the 1982
USSR bonds (“the redemption scheme”). The redemption
scheme provided for conversion of the 1982 USSR bonds into Russian
bonds issued in 1992 or, alternatively, their buy-out by the Savings
Bank at a price fixed by the Government. The applicant did not react
to that offer, so, according to Governmental Decree no. 549 of
5 August 1992 describing the means of the redemption scheme, her
bonds were automatically acquired by the Savings Bank. The bonds were
extinguished and the redemption price of the 1982 USSR bonds was
credited to the applicant’s bank account.
- Between
1995 and 2000, a series of Russian laws was adopted which provided
for the conversion of Soviet securities, including the 1982 USSR
bonds, into special Russian promissory notes. In particular, on 6
July 1996 the Promissory Value Act introduced the “promissory
rouble” as the currency of special promissory notes issued by
the Russian Federation. On 4 February 1999 the Base Value Act
set out the general approach to be taken as regards the conversion of
“promissory roubles” into Russian roubles. The Government
were mandated to devise a more detailed procedure for the conversion.
Although a regulation on the conversion process was adopted by the
Government in 2000 (“Resolution no. 82”), the actual
conversion did not start and application of the regulation has
remained suspended, by a series of resolutions, to the present day.
The application of the Base Value Act was suspended from 1 January
2003 to 1 January 2012 by successive federal laws.
- In
the 1990s the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of
Finance of the Russian Federation and the Savings Bank seeking
damages for the loss of value of her bonds. The first judgment on the
merits was rendered in 1998. On 3 April 2003, following several
rounds of court proceedings, the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow
dismissed her claim. She appealed.
- On
22 October 2003 the Moscow City Court, sitting as a court of appeal,
satisfied her claim in part. In particular, the City Court found that
the compulsory redemption of the bonds in 1992 had breached the
applicant’s rights. The City Court ordered that the applicant
should be restored to the same position as other bondholders, whose
bonds had not been subjected to compulsory redemption and had later
been converted into special promissory notes of the Russian
Federation. The City Court acknowledged the applicant’s right
to eighty-four special promissory notes having a total nominal value
of 3,185 “promissory roubles”. The court also
“acknowledged the applicant’s right to obtain redemption
of the notes from the State, under the conditions established by the
legislation in force for the holders of special promissory notes”.
- The
applicant brought supervisory review proceedings, but to no avail. In
the ruling of 23 August 2004 a judge of the Moscow City Court
explained that in the absence of a specific law defining the terms
and conditions of the redemption of the special promissory notes, the
State had no obligation to pay the applicant any particular amount.
- On
22 February 2006 the applicant obtained a writ of execution against
the Ministry of Finance in pursuance of the judgment of 22 October
2003. The writ was valid for three years. However, it was not
enforced. The Government claimed that the applicant had not tried to
enforce the writ by serving it on the Ministry of Finance.
- In
the following years the applicant initiated several sets of court
proceedings against various State bodies and officials, seeking
damages for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 October
2003, complaining of the failure of the Government and of the
legislature to implement the Base Value Act, and so forth. It appears
that all her claims were rejected, either for want of substantive
jurisdiction over the dispute, or because the courts had found her
claims unsubstantiated. In particular, the applicant sued the
Ministry of Finance for its failure to redeem the promissory notes,
claiming 110,000,000 Russian roubles under the heads of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage. On 13 January 2009 the Moscow City Court,
acting as the court of final instance, rejected her claims against
the Ministry of Finance on the grounds that similar claims has
already been examined in 2003, and, furthermore, the applicant had
failed to justify the amount sought from the defendant.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- For
the relevant domestic law on State premium bonds and promissory notes
of the Russian Federation, see the case of Yuriy Lobanov v.
Russia, no. 15578/03, §§ 13 et seq.,
2 December 2010.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that despite the court judgment of 2003, which
had acknowledged her right to eighty-four promissory notes worth
3,185 “promissory roubles”, she had remained unable
to receive any money from the State. This complaint falls to be
examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which
reads as follows:
“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 submitted the following. In 1992 the Russian Federation
had taken on the USSR’s obligations arising out of the 1982
USSR bonds and had offered their holders a choice between having them
redeemed by the Savings Bank and having them converted into 1992
Russian bonds. The applicant had not made use of either option. Her
bonds had therefore been acquired by the State within the 1992
conversion scheme. In 2003 the courts had restored her rights to the
bonds, which, in the meantime, had been converted into eighty-four
promissory notes of the Russian Federation. However, the redemption
of those promissory notes was not provided for by law. In 2000 the
Government had adopted Resolution no. 82, which had specified the
means of conversion of the USSR’s internal debt into promissory
notes of the Russian Federation and their future redemption, but in
2003 – 2011 the redemption had been suspended by the
Government. The applicant had not served the writ of execution on the
Ministry of Finance. In addition, the law had not set out the means
of redemption of promissory notes of that type. As a result, the 2003
judgment in the applicant’s favour had not been enforced. The
Government concluded that the applicant’s claim was manifestly
ill-founded.
- The
applicant maintained her claim. She indicated, referring to the
judgment of 22 October 2003, that the buy-out of the 1982 USSR bonds
had been unlawful and unfavourable for the bondholders. She also
claimed that the prolonged non-enforcement of that judgment had
violated her rights under the Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to
Convention.
- The
Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) 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 observes that the applicant’s situation in this case,
starting from 22 October 2003, when the Russian courts recognised her
right to eighty-four promissory notes, is similar to that of the
applicant in the case of Yuri Lobanov, cited above. Thus, she
acquired a certain number of 1982 USSR bonds before 1992 and those
bonds were later recognised by the State as a part of its internal
debt and converted into Russian promissory notes. In view of the
above, and having regard to the legislation adopted in 1999 –
2000, the Court finds that the applicant had a legitimate expectation
of having those promissory notes redeemed at some point, although
their exact value and other conditions of their redemption remained
undefined.
- The
Court further notes that “the application of the Base Value Act
and the Government-approved conversion regulation ... was repeatedly
suspended through the Government regulations and federal laws for
each successive year” (see Yuri Lobanov, § 49). By
failing for years to implement appropriate regulations, the
Government brought the situation within the ambit of Article 1
of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention (ibid., § 47).
Although the decisions postponing the implementation of the
redemption scheme were taken by the Russian authorities in a lawful
manner and pursued a legitimate aim (ibid., §§ 49 –
50), “the information available to the Court does not allow it
to find that the Russian Government took any measures in that period
with a view to satisfying the claims arising out of the bonds”
(ibid., § 52).
- The
applicant’s alleged failure to initiate enforcement proceedings
against the Ministry of Finance, to which the Government referred,
is, in the opinion of the Court, irrelevant: even if she had, it is
unclear how the judgment of 22 October 2003 could have been
enforced in the absence of a specific legal mechanism for the
redemption of the promissory notes or their conversion into Russian
roubles. The Government did not rely upon any other argument or
factual information which would warrant a departure from the Court’s
findings in the Yuri Lobanov case.
- The
Court concludes that the State failed to strike a fair balance
between the applicant’s interests under Article 1 of Protocol
no. 1 to the Convention and the public interest in the area of State
finances. There has accordingly been a violation of this provision.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained of a violation of Article 6 of the
Convention, together with Article 13 of the Convention, on account of
the forced redemption of her 1982 USSR bonds in 1992. However, in the
light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the
matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that
these facts do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the
rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§
3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
III. 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 sought 110,000,000 roubles – a sum identical to
the sum she had earlier claimed from the State in the domestic
proceedings (see paragraph 14 above). It is unclear whether that
amount included only a claim for compensation for pecuniary damage or
whether it included non-pecuniary damage as well.
- The
Government objected to the applicant’s calculations and
maintained that they were not based in law and not supported by any
evidence. The Government further claimed that the applicant had
failed to indicate the amount sought under the head of non-pecuniary
damage and should not, therefore, be awarded anything on this
account.
- The
Court notes that the eighty-four promissory notes constitute the
applicant’s “possessions” within the meaning of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court’s finding that the State
failed to develop and implement a redemption scheme (see paragraph 21
above) cannot be interpreted as establishing any particular method of
redemption or defining in abstracto the value of the
promissory notes. However, the applicant’s claims under this
head cannot be rejected simply because of the authorities’
failure to define conditions of redemption (cf., mutatis mutandis,
Malysh and Others v. Russia, no. 30280/03, §§ 69 and
90, 11 February 2010).
- Having
regard to all materials in its possessions, and taking into account
the applicant’s personal situation, and, in particular, her
age, the Court finds it appropriate to award the applicant, on
account of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the amount of
EUR 4,300, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also sought costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings
before the domestic courts. She did not specify the amounts claimed.
- The
Government indicated that the applicant had failed to produce
itemised particulars of claim related to her costs and expenses or
any relevant documents.
- 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 are
reasonable as to quantum. Furthermore, only costs and expenses
related to proceedings which have a direct connection with the
subject-matter of the complaint may be reimbursed. In the present
case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the
above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses
incurred in the domestic proceedings in full, as those proceedings
had no direct bearing on the essence of the applicant’s
complaint which gave rise to the finding of a violation of the
Convention in the present case.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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
respondent’s State failure to develop a redemption scheme for
the promissory notes admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of 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 4,300
(four thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable on this amount, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage;
(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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 April 2012, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President
