British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
AYRAPETYAN v. RUSSIA - 21198/05 [2007] ECHR 475 (14 June 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/475.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 475
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF AYRAPETYAN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 21198/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
June 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 Ayrapetyan v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 21198/05) 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 Edgar Rubikovich
Ayrapetyan (“the applicant”), on 18 April 2005.
The
applicant was represented by Mr K. Ilyin, a human rights activist.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The
applicant alleged that the State had failed to honour a judgment
debt.
On
6 September 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint
concerning non-enforcement 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the Krasnodar Region. He is a
retired military officer.
On
12 May 2004 the Military Court of the Sochi Garrison allowed the
applicant's claims against his former military unit and awarded him
215,245.76 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 6,250 euros). The
judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later.
On
29 May 2004 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the
bailiffs' department of the Ministry of Justice.
The
bailiffs' department could not decide which bailiff would have
territorial jurisdiction over the military unit deployed in Abkhazia,
Georgia. Instead, on 7 July 2004 it sent the writ directly to the
debtor. The writ was lost by the post.
The
bailiffs asked the court to issue a duplicate of the writ of
execution. On 3 March 2005 the Military Court of the Sochi
Garrison issued the applicant with a duplicate.
On
17 March 2005 the applicant submitted the duplicate to the Sochi
department of the Federal Treasury which sent it to the debtor.
On
13 September 2005 the applicant received the judgment debt.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
The
applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment 12 May 2004 was not
enforced in good time. The Court considers that this complaint falls
to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002 III). 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...”
The
Government submitted that the judgment in the applicant's favour had
been fully enforced. The delay in the enforcement had been
attributable to the applicant who had procrastinated in submitting
the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury which was the competent
agency to enforce the judgment. Moreover, he had indicated incomplete
bank details, causing thereby a further delay.
The
applicant maintained his claims. He indicated that he had submitted
the writ of execution to the bailiffs who had lost it. It had taken
the domestic authorities ten months to issue a duplicate writ of
execution. Therefore, at least ten months of the delay had been
attributable to the authorities.
A. Admissibility
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 observes that on 12 May 2004 the applicant obtained a judgment
in his favour against his former military unit. However, it remained
unenforced until 13 September 2005, that is for almost a year and
four months.
A
delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular
circumstances. It remains therefore to be determined whether the
delay was such as to amount to a breach of the applicant's right to
benefit from the judgment debt (see Grishchenko v. Russia
(dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004). The Court notes that the
applicant promptly submitted the writ of execution to bailiffs'
department. The Government claimed that the bailiffs were not
competent to enforce the judgment against the military unit and that
the applicant should have submitted the writ of execution to the
Federal Treasury. Even assuming that the documents were submitted
incorrectly through the applicant's fault, the Court notes that the
bailiffs did not inform the applicant about his mistake and did not
return the writ of execution to him so that he could resubmit it to
the competent agency. Instead, they sent the writ to the debtor which
resulted in its being lost. It was only ten months later that the
court issued a duplicate writ. No justification was offered for that
delay.
Upon
receipt of the duplicate the applicant submitted it to the Federal
Treasury without undue delay. However, it took the Federal Treasury
another six months to effect the payment. The Court accepts that a
certain delay was caused by the applicant's failure to indicate his
bank details correctly. However, having regard to the overall delay
in the enforcement – a substantial period being attributable to
the authorities, - the Court finds that the judgment in the
applicant's favour was not enforced within the “reasonable
time”.
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 Reynbakh v. Russia,
no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005;
Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02,
§ 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v.
Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005;
Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq.,
18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §
34 et seq., ECHR 2002 III).
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 months to comply with the enforceable judgment in the
applicant's favour the domestic authorities prevented him from
receiving the money he 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.”
By
letter of 8 December 2005, the Court invited the applicant's
representative to submit claims for just satisfaction. He did not
submit any such claim. In these circumstances, the Court makes no
award under Article 41.
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;
Decides not to make an award under Article 41 of
the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
