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
PELLYA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 16869/08)
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 Pellya 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. 16869/08) 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 Pavel Andreyevich Pellya
(“the applicant”), on 20 February 2008.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
16 March 2009 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).
4. In
accordance with the pilot judgment Burdov v. Russia (no. 2)
(no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009), the application was adjourned pending
its resolution at the domestic level.
- The
Government requested the Court to examine the application on the
merits. The Court therefore decided to resume examination of the
present case.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Lahti, Finland.
- On
18 June 1999 the Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the
District Court”) found that unlawful actions of police officers
in 1993 had resulted in harm to the applicant’s health
manifesting itself in partial loss of ability to work. This judgment
and a supplementary judgment of 11 October 1999 recovered from
the State treasury in the applicant’s favour lost earnings up
to 1 February 2000 in the amount of 109,751 Russian roubles
(RUB) and compensation of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB
10,000. It appears from the applicant’s own submissions that
the award was paid to him in 1999.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant brought a new action seeking
recovery of lost earnings for the period from 1 February 2000 to
1 March 2005 and further monthly payments to be re-calculated in
accordance with the minimum wage, reimbursement of expert fees and
compensation for sanatorium treatment.
- By
a judgment of 3 March 2005 the District Court granted his claims in
part, however the judgment was reversed on appeal on 18 April 2005,
and the case was remitted to the first instance for fresh
examination.
- On
19 September 2005 the District Court again granted the claims in part
awarding the applicant lost earnings in the amount of RUB 378,185 and
related monthly payments in the amount of RUB 8,911 to be adjusted to
the cost of living, RUB 39,585 for sanatorium treatment, and RUB
5,600 as reimbursement of the expert fees.
- The
above judgment was not challenged on appeal. The enforcement
documents received by the Ministry of Finance on 25 October 2005 were
returned to the applicant in April 2006 due to unidentified
inconsistencies in the judgment.
- On
18 June 2007 the District Court considered the applicant’s
application for adjustment of the amounts awarded by the judgment of
19 September 2005. The court rejected the application but
clarified the original judgment by specifying that the responsibility
for its enforcement lay with the Ministry of Finance. A new writ of
enforcement was issued.
- On
29 January 2008 the judgment of 19 September 2005 was enforced in
full. It transpires from the documents submitted by the Government
and covering the period between February 2008 and February 2010 that
the monthly payments in the amount determined by the District Court
on 19 September 2005 were regularly credited to the applicant’s
account.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 IN RESPECT OF DELAYED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2005
- Without
referring to any particular provision of the Convention, the
applicant complained that he was not receiving the compensation due
to him under the judgment of 19 September 2005. The Court will
examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 ... 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.”
- The
Government did not dispute the allegation that the judgment of 19
September 2005 had been enforced with a delay.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it
inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- The
parties’ arguments are summarised in paragraphs 15 and 16
above.
- 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).
- The
Court observes that the judgment of 19 September 2005 was enforced in
respect of the awarded lump-sum amounts and monthly compensation
arrears on 29 January 2008, that is approximately two years and four
months later. It further observes that no part of the delay in the
enforcement is attributable to the applicant.
- Regard
being had to the above and to the Government’s tacit
acknowledgment of the authorities’ failure to enforce the
judgment in good time, the Court finds that the State has failed to
comply with its obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 IN RESPECT OF DELAYED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 18 JUNE 1999, AS SUPPLEMENTED ON
11 OCTOBER 1999
- The
applicant complained of lengthy enforcement of the judgment of 18
June 1999, which was supplemented by the judgment of 11 October
1999. The Court will examine his complaint under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as detailed above.
- The
Government did not provide any comments on the issue.
- The
Court observes that the applicant stated in his original submissions
that the amounts awarded to him by the above judgment had been paid
to him in 1999 (see paragraph 7 above). Consequently, the delay in
the enforcement of the judgment of 18 June 1999 did not exceed six
months. Having regard to its well-established case-law (see, among
others, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 et
al., 5 February 2009), the Court considers that this period complied
with the requirements of the Convention.
- It
follows that this complaint 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.”
- The
applicant failed to submit his claim for just satisfaction within the
time-limit allocated by the Court. In these circumstances the Court
considers that there is no call to make any award on this account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning delayed
enforcement of the judgment of 19 September 2005 admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 on account of delayed enforcement of the judgment
of 19 September 2005.
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
