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 >>
RYBAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 22376/05 [2010] ECHR 333 (4 March 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/333.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 333
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF RYBAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 22376/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4
March 2010
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 Rybakova and Others
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 9 February 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 22376/05) 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 four Russian nationals, Ms Lidiya Arkadyevna
Rybakova, Mr Vladislav Nikolayevitch Belyayev, Mr Yuriy
Vladislavovitch Belyayev and Ms Marina Vladimirovna Belyayeva (“the
applicants”), on 12 June 2005.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian
Federation at the Court.
The
applicants complained, in particular, about lengthy non-enforcement
of the final and binding judgment in their favour, which had ordered
authorities to register the applicants'
property title to two vehicles.
On
22 January 2009 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
The
applicants were born in 1938, 1939, 1965 and 1963 respectively and
live in Novosemeykino, Samara Region.
The
applicants are owners of two vehicles. Following
the refusal of the Samara Region State Inspectorate for Road Safety
(ОГИБДД
по
Самарской
области)
(the “Inspectorate”) to
register their property title to the vehicles, in October 2000 the
applicants brought judicial proceedings against the Inspectorate.
On
7 May 2003 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara found for the
applicants and ordered the Inspectorate to register their title to
the vehicles. On 9 June 2003 the Samara Regional Court upheld the
judgment on appeal.
On
30 June 2003 the writ of execution was sent to one of the applicants,
Mr Yuriy Belyayev, who however did not receive it. On 8 August
2003 the writ was sent to him for the second time, and Mr Yuriy
Belyayev received it on 9 August 2003.
On
29 May 2006 the enforcement proceedings were opened at the
applicants' request.
On
31 August 2006 the Inspectorate informed the bailiff that it could
not register the applicants' title and that the writ of execution
should be sent to a special state body responsible for vehicles'
registration (Samara Inter District Department of Registration
and Examination – Межрайонный
регистрационно-экзаменационный
отдел
г.
Самары).
On the same day the bailiff asked the court to accordingly change the
debtor in the enforcement proceedings. On 20 September
2006 the Samara District Court of Samara granted the request.
On
30 November 2006 the same court, on the bailiff's initiative, ordered
the enforcement proceedings to be discontinued. The applicants
appealed, claiming that they had not been duly informed about the
proceedings, and on 27 August 2007 the Samara Regional Court quashed
that decision and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On
26 September 2007 the Samara District Court rejected the
bailiff's request to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. The
decision came into force on 10 October 2007.
On
27 June 2008 the applicants' title to one of the vehicles was duly
registered.
On
28 June 2008 the applicants informed the bailiff of their decision
not to register their title to the second vehicle on the grounds that
it had become worthless.
On
24 November 2008 the enforcement proceedings were closed.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
NON-ENFORCEMENT
The applicants complained under
Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the
judgment of 7 May 2003 in
their favour had not been enforced in good time. 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 Government contested that
argument. They argued that the applicants had requested the opening
of the enforcement proceedings on 29 May 2006, thus the State
was not responsible for non-enforcement until that date. They
asserted that the applicants were not interested in the enforcement,
as, for example, they only appealed against the decision of
30 November 2006 to discontinue the enforcement proceedings on
29 May 2007. The Government further affirmed that the State was
not responsible for non-enforcement from 10 October 2007, as the
applicants obstructed the enforcement by failing to submit the
relevant requests and to pay for the registration.
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that this
complaint 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 Court reiterates that an
unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may
breach the Convention (see Burdov
v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III). To decide if the delay was
reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement
proceedings were, how the applicants and the authorities behaved, and
what was the nature of the award (see Raylyan
v. Russia,
no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
In the present case the judgment
was not difficult to enforce as it required only a registration of
the applicants' property title to the vehicles.
As to the conduct of the
applicant and the authorities, the Court reiterates that where a
judgment is against the State, as in this case, it must take
initiative to enforce it. The requirement of the creditor's
cooperation must not go beyond what is strictly necessary (see
Akashev
v. Russia,
no. 30616/05, §§ 21–23, 12 June 2008).
The authorities' failure to
enforce the judgment for more than five years (from May 2003 till
June 2008) allows the Court to conclude that there has been a
violation of Article 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of failure to enforce the judgment in the applicants' favour in good
time.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The applicants also complained
under Article 6 that the proceedings were too long.
Having regard to all the
material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall
within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of
a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in this provision in
that respect. It follows that this part of the application must be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article
35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. 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 applicants claimed 1,280,000 Russian roubles (RUB)
in respect of pecuniary damage (the alleged price of vehicles
identical to the disputed vehicles). They also claimed 40,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non pecuniary damage.
The
Government found the claim for pecuniary damage unsubstantiated and
the claim for non-pecuniary damage excessive.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
(the authorities' failure, during some five years, to register the
applicants' title to vehicles in accordance with a binding judgment)
and the pecuniary damage alleged (the price of the similar vehicles).
Moreover, the applicants did not substantiate the claim. The Court
therefore rejects it.
The
Court finds, however, that the applicants may be considered to have
suffered some degree of frustration and distress as a result of the
violation found in this case. Deciding on an equitable basis, it
awards each of the applicants EUR 3,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also claimed RUB 2,400 for the costs and expenses
incurred.
The
Government considered that the applicants' claim should be granted
since they had submitted the documents confirming these expenses.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the above criteria, the Court awards the sum claimed (EUR 54).
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 complaint concerning
non enforcement admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of
Articles 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in
respect of non-enforcement;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement:
(i)
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 54 (fifty four euros) to the applicants jointly, plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 March 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
