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 >>
KRAVTSOV v. RUSSIA - 39272/04 [2011] ECHR 596 (5 April 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/596.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 596
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF
KRAVTSOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 39272/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 April
2011
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 Kravtsov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Christos
Rozakis,
Peer
Lorenzen,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia
Laffranque,
judges,
and
Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 March 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 39272/04) 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 Eduard Vladimirovich
Kravtsov (“the applicant”), on 28 September 2004. The
applicant was not represented before the Court.
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
applicant alleged that final and enforceable domestic judgments
rendered in his favour had not been enforced in a timely manner.
On
16 March 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.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the town of
Yelizovo, the Kamchatka Region. He is a military serviceman.
On 22 March and 20 May 2004 the Pacific Ocean Fleet
Military Court (“the Fleet Court”), sitting in
Vladivostok, in the final instance dismissed the applicant’s
claims against his commanding officers.
On 22 July 2004 the Fleet Court in the final instance
allowed the applicant’s other claim. It made the following
order:
“The commanding officer of military unit no. 27120
shall provide [the applicant] with data about the constitutive
elements of his monetary allowance paid to him from 1 January 2003
until 13 March 2004, as well as about reasons and grounds for him
being deprived of bonus in 2003”.
The Fleet Court’s judgment of 22 July 2004 was
final and immediately enforceable.
On 4 April 2005 the bailiffs of the Kamchatka Regional
Department of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service (“the Regional
Department”) commenced the enforcement proceedings. They
requested the commanding officer to enforce the judgment of 22 July
2004 in the applicant’s favour voluntarily within a five-days
period.
Meanwhile,
on 1 April 2005 the 35th Garrison Military Court (“the
Garrison Court”), sitting in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, allowed
another claim lodged by the applicant. It ordered the commanding
officer of the military unit no. 51401 to provide the applicant with
an annual leave starting from 29 May 2005. The judgment of 1 April
2005 was not appealed against and became final and enforceable on 15
April 2005.
On
10 June 2005 the bailiffs of the Regional Department commenced the
enforcement proceedings. They requested the commanding officer to
enforce the judgment of 1 April 2005 in the applicant’s favour
voluntarily within a five-days period. The judgment was enforced
before October 2005.
On
4 June 2009 the commanding officer of the military unit no. 27120
wrote to the applicant providing him with the relevant information,
as he had been ordered to do by the Fleet Court’s judgment of
22 July 2004. The letter of 4 June 2009 indicated that it was sent in
compliance with the judgment of 22 July 2004. It was received by the
applicant on 8 June 2009.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
Domestic
law and practice on execution of the judgments delivered against the
State and its entities are summarised in Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia
(no. 33509/04, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2009-...).
The
2010 legislation introducing a new domestic remedy in respect of an
alleged violation of one’s right to enforcement of a judgment
within reasonable time is summarised in Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v.
Russia (dec.), nos. 27451/09 and 60650/09, §§ 15-20, 23
September 2010, and Balagurov v. Russia (dec.), no.
9610/05, 2 December 2010.
On
23 December 2010 the Joint Plenary of the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation and the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian
Federation adopted a resolution interpreting the above-mentioned
legislative provisions. It is reiterated in the resolution that the
legislation in question is applicable only in respect of the monetary
awards payable from the public funds pursuant to a contractual or
legal provision (paragraph 1).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF NON ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 22
JULY 2004
The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about
prolonged non-enforcement of the final and enforceable judgment of
22 July 2004 in his favour.
Article
6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as
follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The
Government averred that the judgment in the applicant’s favour
had been timely enforced.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that the Government did not put forward any formal
objection concerning the admissibility of the complaint about the
prolonged non-enforcement of the Fleet Court’s judgment of
22 July 2004 in the applicant’s favour. The Court
considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that this
complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention,
the determination of which requires examination of its merits. The
Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been
established. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The
Court reiterates that the right of access to a court secured under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be illusory if a
Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final
binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of
one party (see, among many other authorities, Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002 III, and Société
Cofinfo v. France (dec.), no. 23516/08, 12 October 2010).
In
so far as the enforcement of the Fleet Court’s judgment is
concerned, the Court notes that it became final and enforceable on
22 July 2004. The applicant received a letter containing
information which the commanding officer had been ordered to furnish
in June 2009. It follows that it took the military authorities almost
five years to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour.
The Court does not lose sight of the fact that the present applicant
was entitled to receive specified personal information which was of
particular importance to him as its timely receipt could have enabled
the applicant to pursue his complaints against the military
authorities further. It is not clear what obstacle might have
prevented the military authorities from furnishing the applicant with
that information which was presumably readily available. The Court
understands that the information in question was in the military
authorities’ exclusive possession and the applicant did not
have any other method of obtaining it at his disposal.
The
Court recalls in this connection that a delay in the execution of a
judgment may be justified in particular circumstances but it may not
be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article
6 § 1 of the Convention (see Gizzatova v. Russia, no.
5124/03, § 20, 13 January 2005). In the instant case, however,
the Court considers that the delay of several years in the execution
of a simple procedural act in accordance with the judgment appears at
the outset manifestly unreasonable. Nor did the Government advance
any sound justification for such a long delay. The Court is mindful
that information is by definition a perishable commodity (see,
mutatis mutandis, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands
[GC], no. 38224/03, § 70, ECHR 2010-...), therefore,
grounds for delay in providing the personal information to the
individual concerned – when such disclosure is ordered by a
domestic court – shall be particularly exceptional (see Kenedi
v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 39 and 45, ECHR 2009-...).
No such grounds were shown to exist in the case sub judice.
Accordingly,
by failing for several years to take the necessary measures to comply
with the final Fleet Court’s judgment of 22 July 2004 in the
applicant’s favour, the Russian authorities deprived the
provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect. There has
accordingly been a violation of this Article.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
In
so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention about the belated enforcement of the Garrison Court’s
judgment of 1 April 2005 is concerned, the Court notes that it
was fully enforced before October 2005, that is within seven months.
Having regard to its case law on the subject (see Presnyakov
v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005, and
Inozemtsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 874/03, 31 August 2006),
the Court finds that this judgment was enforced within reasonable
time. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and
must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of
the Convention.
Finally,
the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention about
absence of domestic remedies in respect of his principal grievances
raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, having
examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints, in the
light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the
matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that
they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
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. Non-pecuniary damage
The
applicant claimed compensation of 50,000 euros (EUR) for
non pecuniary damage suffered. The Government responded that the
amount of compensation claimed by the applicant was not in accordance
with “the principles of proportionality and adequacy”.
The
Court considers that the failure to have the Fleet Court’s
judgment of 22 July 2004 in the applicant’s favour enforced
during almost five years must have caused him certain distress and
frustration. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Pecuniary damage and costs and
expenses
The
applicant did not submit any claim for pecuniary damage and for costs
and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call
to award him any sum under those headings.
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 the
non enforcement of the judgment of 22 July 2004 admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
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 4,000 (four
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 5 April 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President
