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 >>
SMORODINOVA v. RUSSIA - 37647/04 [2008] ECHR 50 (17 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/50.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 50
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SMORODINOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 37647/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 January
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 Smorodinova v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoli
Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 December 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 37647/04) 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, Mrs Olga Nikolayevna
Smorodinova (“the applicant”), on 30 August 2004.
The
applicant was represented by Mrs S. Poznakhirina, an NGO expert
practising in Novovoronezh.
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
29 May 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 1958 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in
the Voronezh Region.
The
applicant is a Chernobyl pensioner. She sued the Welfare Office for
the unpaid allowances.
On
15 July 2003 the Novovoronezhskyy Town Court of the Voronezh Region
(“the Town Court”) awarded her the unpaid disability
allowance over the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 July 2003 in the
amount of 22,109.75 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment entered into
force on 25 July 2003. It was enforced in full on 9 June 2005.
By
a judgment of 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant the
unpaid food and disability allowances over the period between 1 July
2002 and 31 December 2003 in the amount of RUB 4,329.72 and RUB
643.85 respectively. The judgment acquired legal force on 25 March
2004. It appears that it has not been enforced to date.
On
15 March 2004 the Town Court recovered in the applicant's favour the
unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 August 2003 and
31 December 2003 in the amount of RUB 13,971.50. The judgment became
final on 25 March 2004. It was fully enforced on 3 August 2005.
By
a judgment of 6 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant the
unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 January 2004
and 31 March 2004 in the amount of RUB 9,494.54. The court also
increased the monthly disability allowance to RUB 5,664.85 as of 1
April 2004 and held that it had to be index-linked in accordance with
legislation. On 17 May 2004 the judgment acquired legal force.
On 10 June 2004 the Welfare Office ordered to increase the
applicant's monthly disability allowance to RUB 5,664.85. On 11
November 2005 the applicant received RUB 9,949.54.
On
9 September 2004 the Town Court recovered in the applicant's favour
the unpaid food allowance over the period between 1 January 2004 and
31 March 2004 in the amount of RUB 1,139.34 and the unpaid annual
disability allowance for 2004 in the amount of RUB 1,132.96. The
court also increased the applicant's monthly food allowance to RUB
679.78 as of 1 April 2004 and ordered to index-link it in accordance
with legislation. The court further held that as of 2005 the Welfare
Office was to pay the applicant an annual disability allowance and to
index-link it in accordance with legislation. The judgment entered
into force on 20 September 2004. It appears that it has not been
enforced to date.
On
29 September 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 12,659.40
for the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 April
2004 and 31 July 2004. On 11 October 2004 the judgment acquired legal
force. It was fully enforced on 11 November 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the lengthy non enforcement
of the final judgments in her favour. 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 15 July 2003, the judgment
of 15 March 2004 awarding the applicant arrears in respect of a
disability allowance, the judgments of 6 May and 29 September 2004
had been fully enforced. They did not give any justification for the
delays in the enforcement of the above judgments.
The
Government further submitted that the judgment of 15 March 2004, by
which the applicant had been awarded arrears in respect of food and
disability allowances, and the judgment of 9 September 2004 had not
been enforced because the Ministry of Finance had not allocated
necessary funds to the local department of the federal treasury. The
Government acknowledged that the non-enforcement of those judgments
infringed the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Subsequently the
Government submitted that the applicant had received monthly and
annual allowances for the period up to 1 July 2006.
The
applicant did not dispute that the judgments of 15 July 2003,
15 March, 6 May and 29 September 2004 had been fully enforced.
She submitted that the judgment of 15 March 2004, by which she was
awarded the unpaid food and disability allowances, and the judgment
of 9 September 2004 had not been enforced.
The
Court observes that in 2003 and 2004 the applicant obtained six
judgments, by which the Welfare Office of Novovoronezh, a state body,
was to pay her substantial amounts in social benefits. Four of those
judgments were enforced in full with substantial delays varying from
13 to 22 months. The Court further observes that the Government
submitted no proof that the judgments of 15 March and 9 September
2004 had been enforced in full. Having regard to the materials in its
possession, the Court concludes that those judgments remain without
enforcement.
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 Wasserman v. Russia, no.
15021/02, 18 November 2004).
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 lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the
applicant's favour. It finds that by failing, for long periods of
time, to comply with the enforceable judgments in the applicant's
favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of her right to
a court and prevented her from receiving the money she 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 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage and EUR 703 in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the
outstanding debt due to her under the judgments of 15 March and
9 September 2004.
The Government submitted that the applicant's claim
for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated. They further considered
that the award for non-pecuniary damage should be similar to the one
made in the case of Gorokhov and Rusyaev v. Russia (no.
38305/02, 17 March 2005).
As to the pecuniary claim, the Court notes that the
State's outstanding obligation to enforce
the judgments in the applicant's favour is not in dispute. It
therefore considers that the Government shall secure, by appropriate
means, the enforcement of the domestic awards which remain without
enforcement (see paragraph 18 above).
The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered certain
distress and frustration resulting from the authorities' failure to
enforce the final judgments in her favour in good time. However, the
amount claimed appears to be excessive. Taking into account the
length of the enforcement proceedings, the number of the awards and
their nature and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court awards the applicant EUR 2,700 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and before the Court. Accordingly, the
Court makes no award under this head.
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 awards made by the domestic court, and
in addition pay the applicant EUR 2,700 (two
thousand seven hundred euros) in respect of non pecuniary
damage, 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 amount 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 17 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
