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 >>
BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA - 24620/02 [2007] ECHR 81 (25 January 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/81.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 81
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 24620/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25
January 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 Belyayev 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 F. Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and
Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 24620/02) 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 Sergey Grigoryevich
Belyayev (“the applicant”), on 3 June 2002.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
On
4 January 2006 the Court decided to communicate 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Tambov. He is permanently
disabled as a result of participation in the emergency response
operations at the Chernobyl nuclear power station.
A. The judgment of 27 April 1999 and its
enforcement
On
27 April 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov delivered a
judgment in which it ordered the Social Security Service to provide
the applicant with a car with hand controls. The judgment was not
appealed against and became enforceable on 12 May 1999.
It
appears that the Social Security Service did not comply with the
judgment. For that reason, on 13 June 2000 the bailiff's office
issued a charging order in respect of two vehicles purchased by the
Social Security Service. On 24 June 2000 the Social Security
Service complained against the measure taken by the bailiff's office.
On
5 October 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov revoked
the charging order. That decision was upheld on 1 November 2000
by the Tambov Regional Court.
Thereafter
the Social Security Service submitted a request to the Leninskiy
District Court of Tambov to stay the execution of the judgment.
However, on 4 April 2001 the District Court dismissed the
request.
On
26 July 2001 the bailiff's office discontinued the enforcement
proceedings and returned the writ of execution to the applicant. The
bailiff's decision, however, was quashed by the Leninskiy District
Court of Tambov on 27 September 2001.
Subsequently,
the Social Security Service once more submitted a request to stay the
execution of the judgment until 31 December 2003. On 19 March
2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov granted the request.
On
21 June 2004 the applicant purchased a car at his own expense;
the Social Security Service reimbursed a portion (66,900 Russian
roubles (RUR)) of the purchase price equivalent to that of a cycle
car.
According
to the Government, the enforcement proceedings were terminated on
8 July 2004.
B. The judgment of 1 June 2001 and its enforcement
On
an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action, seeking an
increase of the monthly rate of the disability compensation he was
entitled to receive.
In
a judgment of 1 June 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov
awarded the applicant RUR 77,826.90 for the period from
1 January 2000 to 31 May 2001 and increased the monthly
rate to RUR 10,000, effective as from 1 June 2001. The
judgment became enforceable on 14 June 2001.
In
April 2002 the Social Security Service paid RUR 77,826.90 to the
applicant.
On
1 January 2003 the Social Security Service started to make
monthly disability payments in the amount of RUR 10,000.
On
23 March 2003 the applicant received RUR 140,243 in arrears
on account of the State's failure to pay, in 2001 and 2002, the
disability compensation in the amount determined in the judgment of
1 June 2001.
C. The judgment debt of 27 April 2002 and its
enforcement
On
8 October 2001 the applicant brought an action seeking the
adjustment of the unpaid amount awarded to him on 1 June 2001 to
take account of inflation.
On
27 April 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov granted the
applicant's claim and awarded him RUR 171,181.36. The judgment
became enforceable on 8 May 2002.
On
1 April 2003 the Social Security Service requested the court to
clarify the judgment of 27 April 2002 and to reduce the amount
awarded.
On
9 April 2003 the District Court reduced the award to
RUR 93,354.46.
The judgment of 27 April 2002, as amended on 9 April 2003, was
enforced on 13 May 2003.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgments of
27 April 1999, 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002 had not
been 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 ... 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 notes that the 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
1. Concerning the enforcement of the judgment of
27 April 1999
The
Government acknowledged that the judgment of 27 April 1999 had
not been enforced. They further conceded that the applicant's rights
set out in Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 had been violated as a result of the
non-enforcement of the judgment.
The applicant agreed and maintained his claims.
The
Court observes that the judgment has remained unenforced to date,
that is for more than seven years and five months. The Court further
notes that the Government did not rely on any argument which could
justify such a lengthy delay in the enforcement of the judgment of
27 April 1999.
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, for example, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00,
ECHR 2002-III).
Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that by failing for
years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's
favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of his right to
a court and prevented him from obtaining the car he had legitimately
expected to receive. The fact that in June 2004 the applicant
received part of the purchase price of the car cannot mitigate the
negative effect of such a lengthy period of non-enforcement.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
2. Concerning the enforcement proceedings in respect of
the judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002
The
Government submitted that the judgment of 1 June 2001 had been
enforced by 23 March 2003 and that the judgment of 27 April
2002 had been enforced on 13 May 2003. They admitted that the
delayed enforcement of the judgments constituted a violation of the
applicant's rights under Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government, however,
claimed that the judgments had been enforced within a “reasonable
time”.
The
applicant maintained his claims. He did not dispute that the
judgments had been enforced. However, he considered that the length
of the enforcement proceedings had been excessive.
The
Court reiterates that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be
justified in particular circumstances (see, among other authorities,
Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004).
However, the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the
“right to a court” enshrined in Article 6 § 1
of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no.
22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999 V). The Court has previously
found that the length of enforcement proceedings exceeding eleven
months where the award concerned the payment of a disability
compensation to the applicant was not “reasonable” (see
Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 35,
17 March 2005).
Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that even though
the authorities recognised in substance that the delay in the
execution of the judgment of 1 June 2001 amounted to a violation
of the applicant's rights and adjusted the amount to be paid to him
to take account of inflation, the full payment of the judgment debt
was delayed for another year. The Court further notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
justifying the delay in the enforcement proceedings.
The
Court finds that the authorities' failure to repay for a considerable
period of time the disability compensation to the applicant in
accordance with the judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April
2002 impaired the essence of his “right to a court” and
prevented him, during this period, from receiving the money he had
legitimately expected to receive.
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
The
applicant further complained about the lack of an effective remedy in
respect of the continued non-enforcement of the judgments in his
favour. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined
under Article 13 of the Convention, which 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
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
Government did not address the issue in their observations.
The
applicant maintained his claims.
The
Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an
effective remedy before a national authority for a breach of the
requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
that proceedings should not exceed a “reasonable time”
(see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI), and that the execution of a judgment is an integral part of
the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1
(see, for example, Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19
March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 II,
§ 40).
The
Court has previously ruled in cases where the domestic law did not
provide for a mechanism to compel the State to repay a judgment debt
that the applicants did not have an effective remedy that could have
expedited the enforcement of a judgment against a State authority
(see, for example, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, 29 June
2004, §§ 30-31 and 46-48).
Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the
Government did not indicate any remedy that could have provided the
applicant with adequate redress for the continued non-enforcement of
the judgments in his favour. Nor can the Court discern any basis in
the evidence submitted by the parties to conclude otherwise.
Accordingly,
the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 13
of the Convention on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic
law whereby the applicant could have obtained
redress for a violation of his right to have the judgments enforced.
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
1. Pecuniary damage
The
applicant claimed RUR 16,879.91 in respect of the pecuniary
damage resulting from the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 April
1999. In particular, he submitted that when reimbursing him the cost
of the car he had purchased, the Social Security Service had paid him
only RUR 66,900, that is the price of a cycle car, whereas the
price of a car with hand controls was RUR 80,200. The
outstanding amount of RUR 13,300 should be adjusted to take
account of inflation. Accordingly, the damage amounted to
RUR 16,879.91, based on the inflation rate calculated by the
State Statistics Service. He further claimed RUR 36,858.62 in
respect of the pecuniary damage resulting from the delayed
enforcement of the judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April
2002.
The
Government did not submit any comments.
The
Court notes that the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim
for the pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the delay in the
enforcement of the judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April
2002. It therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court
accepts the applicant's calculations as regards the damage resulting
from the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 April 1999 and
awards him RUR 16,879.91 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
The
applicant claimed 14,847 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
The
Government did not submit any comments.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have suffered a certain
amount of distress and frustration as a result of the State
authorities' failure to enforce, in good time, the judgments in his
favour and to provide a remedy whereby he could have obtained redress
for the delayed enforcement. However, the amount claimed appears
excessive. Taking into account the relevant elements, such as the
nature of the award at stake in the present case and the length of
the enforcement proceedings, and making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 4,900 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on that amount.
C. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed RUR 6,412.20 for costs and expenses
before the Court, including RUR 5,700 for translation of
documents and RUR 712.20 for postal expenses.
The
Government did not comment.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his 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 applicant RUR 6,412.20 for costs and
expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount.
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 the non-enforcement of the
judgment of 27 April 1999;
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 belated enforcement of the
judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002;
Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 13 of 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, the following
amounts:
(i) RUR 16,879.91
(sixteen thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine roubles and
ninety-one kopecks) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
4,900 (four thousand nine hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement;
(iii) RUR 6,412.20
(six thousand four hundred and twelve roubles and twenty kopecks) in
respect of costs and expenses;
(iv) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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 25 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
