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 >>
LEDOVKIN v. RUSSIA - 43209/04 [2008] ECHR 171 (21 February 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/171.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 171
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF LEDOVKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 43209/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
February 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 Ledovkin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoli
Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 31 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 43209/04) 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 Yuriy Borisovich
Ledovkin (“the applicant”), on 16 November 2004.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially
represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and subsequently by
their new representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
On
25 September 2006 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
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Pskov.
He
is a Chernobyl pensioner.
On
10 February 2003 the Pskov Town Court of the Pskov Region (“the
Town Court”) granted his claim against the Welfare Office and
recovered arrears in respect of disability and food allowances in the
amount of 22,742.64 Russian roubles (RUB) and in the amount of RUB
1,713 respectively. The Town Court held that as of 1 January 2002 the
applicant had been entitled to a certain increase in his disability
allowance, and that as of 1 July 2002 he had been entitled to yet
another increase in disability and food allowances. The Town Court
further held that as of 1 February 2003 the applicant was entitled to
a monthly disability allowance in the amount of RUB 4,540.52 and to a
monthly food allowance in the amount of RUB 544.80. Furthermore,
the Town Court held that in future, the monthly disability and food
allowances had to be increased in line with the minimum subsistence
amount if its index of growth attained an inflation rate of 6%. The
judgment acquired legal force on 21 February 2003.
According
to the Government, the judgment of 10 February 2003 was enforced in
full. The final payment under that judgment was made in November
2006.
The
applicant submitted that the judgment of 10 February 2003 remained
without enforcement in the part concerning the payment of a monthly
food allowance.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 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 about the prolonged non-enforcement of
the judgment of 10 February 2003. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, 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
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
Government submitted that the judgment of 10 February 2003 had been
enforced in full. They acknowledged that there had been delays in the
enforcement of the judgment.
The
applicant maintained his complaint. He argued that the judgment of 10
February 2003 remained without enforcement in part concerning the
payment of a monthly food allowance of RUB 544.80. The applicant
submitted an extract of his bank statement of 31 March 2007 from
which it followed that since January 2007 he had been receiving RUB
393.86 in respect of monthly food allowance.
The
Court observes that on 10 February 2003 the applicant obtained a
judgment by which the Welfare Office of Pskov, a state body, was to
pay him substantial amounts in social benefits. The judgment acquired
legal force on 21 February 2003. It follows from the bank statement
submitted by the applicant that at least until 31 March 2007 he had
not been paid the food allowance in the amount awarded by the
judgment of 10 February 2003. The Court observes that the Government
submitted no proof that the judgment of 10 February 2003 had been
enforced in full. Having regard to the materials in its possession,
the Court concludes that the judgment of 10 February 2003 has
not been enforced in full to date.
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 Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III, and Svitich v. Russia, no.
39013/05, 31 July 2007).
Having
examined the materials submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
justifying the non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 February 2003.
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 receiving the money he had legitimately 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.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 32,103.96 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of
pecuniary damage which represented the loss of value of the judgment
debt. He submitted a detailed calculation of his claims which was
based on the refinancing rate of the Bank of Russia and on the
inflation rate in the Pskov Region. He also claimed 6,500 euros (EUR)
in respect of non pecuniary damage.
The
Government failed to submit their comments on the applicant's claims
within the prescribed time-limits.
The Court firstly notes that the State's outstanding
obligation to enforce
the judgment in the applicant's favour is not in dispute.
Accordingly, the applicant is still entitled to recover the
judgment debt in the domestic proceedings. The Court reiterates that
the most appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of
Article 6 is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put
in the position he would have been had the requirements of Article 6
not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50),
judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 85, § 12, and, mutatis
mutandis, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, §
27, 23 October 2003). The Court finds that in the present case this
principle applies as well, having regard to the violations found (see
Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, 24
February 2005). It therefore considers that the Government shall
secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of
10 February 2003.
The
Court further considers that there is a causal link between the
violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. Taking into account
the applicant's calculations, the Court awards him EUR 900 in respect
of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
The
Court furthermore considers that the applicant must have suffered
certain distress and frustration resulting from the authorities'
failure to enforce the final judgment in his favour. However, the
amount claimed appears to be excessive. Taking into account the
length of the enforcement proceedings, the nature of the award and
making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the
applicant EUR 3,900 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed RUB 1,060.30 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
The
Government failed to submit their comments within the allowed
time-limits.
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 sum of EUR 30 covering costs under all heads.
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 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of
the judgment of 10 February 2003, and in addition pay the applicant
EUR 900 (nine hundred euros) in respect of pecuniary damage,
EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 30 (thirty euros) in respect of costs
and expenses, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(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 21 February 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
