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 >>
ANTONOVA v. RUSSIA - 25749/05 [2008] ECHR 891 (25 September 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/891.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 891
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ANTONOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 25749/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25
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 Antonova 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 4 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 25749/05) 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, Ms Lena Aleksandrovna
Antonova (“the applicant”), on 23 June 2005.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, the former
Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
On
14 November 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was 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
applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Yakutsk, a town in Yakutia.
The
applicant’s father and his family of three (including the
applicant) lived in a council flat under the threat of collapse. On
16 November 1998 the Yakutsk Town Court ordered the local council to
provide the applicant’s father with “decent living
premises for a family of three”. This judgment became binding
on 26 November 1998, but was not enforced.
In
January 2001 the applicant’s father died, and on 19 September
2005 the Town Court transferred the right of claim to the applicant.
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.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
The
applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the
non-enforcement of the judgment. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. Insofar 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
Government argued that the application had been inadmissible. The
applicant had abused her right of individual petition under Article
35 § 3 of the Convention because she had claimed a flat of a
higher quality than that awarded by the domestic judgment.
The
applicant maintained her complaint.
The
Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive if,
among other things, it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see
Varbanov v Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36,
ECHR 2000 X). However, by giving her interpretation of the
domestic court’s imprecise award (“decent living premises
for a family of three”), the applicant did not misrepresent
facts. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s
objection.
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 they had violated the applicant’s
rights. Nevertheless, they claimed responsibility for only four years
and nine months’ delay. In their opinion, the rest of the delay
had been attributable to the applicant who had sought alternative
ways of enforcement and had rejected reasonable settlement offers.
The
Court takes note of the Government’s admission as to the
violation of the applicant’s rights under the Convention. In
the circumstances of the present case the Court finds no reason to
hold otherwise. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 non-pecuniary damage in the amount to be determined
by the Court.
The
Government argued that this claim had been unfounded.
The
Court accepts that the applicant might have been distressed by the
non-enforcement of the judgment. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards 3,900 euros under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant made no claim for the costs and expenses. 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 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
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, EUR 3,900
(three thousand nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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 25 September 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
