European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36574/04
by Aleksandr Petrovich LUTOSHKIN
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 June 2004,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant’s comments made in reply,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Petrovich Lutoshkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Novosibirsk. 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.

The applicant received compensation for health damage from the State, following his participation in the emergency clean-up operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

By a judgment of 11 December 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk (“the District Court”) granted in part his claim for arrears and adjustment of his allowance relative to the minimum wage.

On 13 January 2004 the Novosibirsk Regional Court, which considered the above judgment on appeal, modified a part of the judgment and upheld the remainder on appeal.

On an unspecified date the applicant, who was not content with the amount of compensation granted and with the way the domestic courts had interpreted the applicable law, lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 11 December 2003, as upheld on 13 January 2004.

On 17 December 2004 the Presidium of the Novosibirsk Regional Court granted his request and quashed the judgments of 11 December 2003 and of 13 January 2004 on account of erroneous interpretation of the domestic law by the lower courts. The case was remitted for fresh examination.

In the ensuing proceedings the applicant’s claims were granted by the District Court on 15 May 2007. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on 14 June 2007 and enforced on 6 August 2007.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 11 December 2003 had not been enforced in due time.

He also complained under the same provisions about the insufficiency of the awards made by the courts and alleged that the courts had made an erroneous interpretation of the relevant law.

THE LAW

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

“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 argued that the judgment in question had been quashed before it could be enforced and the final judgment had been executed speedily.

The Court observes that the judgment of 11 December 2003 had been pending enforcement for approximately eleven months when it was set aside by way of supervisory review at the applicant’s request. Whereas it has previously found that a quashing in supervisory review would not necessarily dispense the State from its obligation to enforce the judgment before it was quashed (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, §§ 25–26, 13 April 2006), the Court considers that in the instant case the delay in enforcement before the quashing was not excessive.

It follows that the applicant’s complaint of non-enforcement is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President