European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Valentina Andreyevna UKHINA v Russia - 25453/06 [2010] ECHR 1483 (16 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1483.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1483
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
25453/06
by Valentina Andreyevna UKHINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 September 2010 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,
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 April 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Valentina Andreyevna Ukhina, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Orsk, the Orenburg Region.The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 March 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk of the Orenburg Region granted the applicant's husband's action against a local social welfare authority and awarded him 125,127.16 Russian Roubles in compensation for health damage. The judgment entered into force on 6 April 2004 and was fully enforced on 22 and 27 December 2005, when the awarded sum was transferred to the claimant's banking account.
On 22 January 2006 the applicant's husband died.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the judgment in her late husband's favour.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-execution of the award in favour of her deceased husband. 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.”
The Government submitted that the applicant was not a victim of the alleged violation. They pointed out that the judgment of 26 March 2004 had been made in favour of the applicant's husband alone and had been executed almost two months before the husband's death. In any event, she had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to her, since she had not sought assistance from the bailiffs' service in order to have the judgment executed.
The applicant maintained her claim arguing that she was her husband's legal successor under the domestic law.
The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the exhaustion issue, since the application is inadmissible as follows.
The Court notes that, in contrast to a significant number of cases in which the applicant died in the course of the Convention proceedings and their heirs or close members of his family expressed their wish to pursue the application in their stead (see, for example, Kalló v. Hungary, no. 30081/02, § 24, 11 April 2006), the applicant in the present case had lodged the application before the Court on her own behalf.
The Court reiterates that in order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 128, p. 846, §§ 56-59). The Court observes that in the present case the pecuniary claim against the welfare authority was lodged by the applicant's husband and that the judgment of 26 March 2004 was made in his favour. That judgment did not determine the applicant's civil rights and obligations and did not confer any entitlement on her (see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, §§ 29-30, 30 June 2005). Furthermore, it follows from the case materials that the domestic award in question had been executed in full on 27 December 2005, that is almost one month before the applicant's husband's death. Finally, the Court observes that the applicant failed to submit any document to confirm that she had accepted the succession or describing the contents of such a succession (see Raguzina v. Russia (dec.), no. 909/03, 7 September 2006).
The Court therefore considers that the non-enforcement complaint lodged by the applicant on her own behalf is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
