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 >>
GLUKHOVA AND BRAGINA v. RUSSIA - 28785/04 [2008] ECHR 855 (18 September 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/855.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 855
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF GLUKHOVA AND BRAGINA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 28785/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
September 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 Glukhova and Bragina v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 August 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 28785/04) 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 two Russian nationals, Ms Lidiya Nikolayevna
Glukhova and Ms Tamara Nikolayevna Bragina (“the applicants”),
on 24 July 2004.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On
22 June 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 §
3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants were born in 1930 and 1932 respectively and live in
Voronezh, a town in the Voronezh Region.
The
applicants are pensioners. They sued the local welfare authority for
underpaid cost-of-living adjustment of their pensions. On 1 December
2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh gave two
judgments and awarded the first applicant 1,013.68 Russian roubles
(RUB) and the second applicant RUB 906.66. These judgments became
binding on 12 December 2000 and were enforced on 27 November 2006.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months. Under
section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of
Finance must enforce a judgment within three months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
The
applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments
referring to Articles 6, 13, and 17 of the Convention, and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1. The Court will examine this complaint under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
In so far as relevant, these Articles 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 admitted that the delayed enforcement of the judgments
breached the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
In
the circumstances of the present case the Court finds no reason to
hold otherwise. Accordingly, there has been a violation of these
Articles.
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
first applicant claimed 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage. The second applicant claimed EUR 7,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government noted that any possible award should correspond to the
Court’s past awards in similar cases.
The
Court accepts that the delayed enforcement of the judgments might
have distressed the applicants. The Court considers, however, that
the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just
satisfaction.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants made no claim under this head. Accordingly, the Court
makes no award.
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;
Holds that the finding of a violation
constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any
non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 September 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
