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 >>
LEVIN v. RUSSIA - 35893/04 [2008] ECHR 894 (25 September 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/894.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 894
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF LEVIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 35893/04)
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 Levin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, 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. 35893/04) 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 Viktor Nikolayevich
Levin (“the applicant”), on 10 June 2004.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representatives
of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On
23 October 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
applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Gorodovikovsk, a town in
Kalmykia.
As
a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to benefits.
Considering himself underpaid, he sued the local welfare authority.
On
15 September 2003 the Gorodovikovskiy District Court of Kalmykia
awarded the applicant arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic
benefits. This judgment became binding on 4 December 2003 and was
enforced on 18 November 2005.
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
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment. 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
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 judgment had
breached the applicant's 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. There has, accordingly, 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
In
respect of pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed a lump sum of
3,258,768.70 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 46,208.80 monthly. These
sums represented the applicant's estimate of what his benefits should
have been.
The
Government argued that this claim had been unfounded.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
In
respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed an unspecified
sum, leaving this question to the Court's discretion.
The
Government noted that any award in this respect should be coherent
with the Court's past awards.
The
Court accepts that the delayed enforcement of the judgment must have
distressed the applicant. Making its assessment on an equitable
basis, the Court awards 1,600 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
1. 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 1,600 (one
thousand six 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
