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 >>
RYABIKINA v. RUSSIA - 44150/04 [2011] ECHR 896 (7 June 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/896.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 896
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF RYABIKINA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 44150/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 June
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 Ryabikina 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,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 May 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 44150/04) 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, Ms Larisa Ivanovna
Ryabikina (“the applicant”), on 12 November 2004.
The
applicant was represented by Mr V.N. Voblikov. The Russian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
The
applicant alleged, in particular, that she had been denied access to
court.
On
22 September 2008 the President of the First Section decided to
give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided
to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the
same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1947 and lived in Ryazan. On 29 September
2008 the applicant died. On 3 August 2009 Mr Yaroslav Voblikov,
the late applicant’s son (born on 19 August 1977),
expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.
A. Claim for pension arrears
On
6 April 1999 the applicant brought a claim against the regional
social security service for pension arrears.
On
25 December 2000 the Bilibino District Court of the Chukotka
Region granted the applicant’s claim in part. The applicant
appealed. On 15 February 2001 the Chukotka Regional Court
quashed the judgment of 25 December 2000 on appeal and remitted
the matter to the District Court for fresh consideration.
On
28 April 2001 the District Court partly granted the applicant’s
claims. On 4 October 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment
of 28 April 2001 on appeal.
On
25 October 2001 the applicant obtained a writ of execution.
Subsequently the judgment was enforced.
B. Action for compensation for the excessive length of
proceedings
On
17 September 2002 the applicant brought an action against the
Treasury of the Russian Federation, seeking compensation for
non pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the excessive
length of the proceedings concerning her claim for pension arrears.
She argued that the courts had failed to observe the time-limits
prescribed by the Russian Code of Civil Procedure.
On
13 January 2003 the Anadyr Town Court of the Chukotka Region
partly granted the applicant’s claims.
On
27 March 2003 the Chukotka Regional Court quashed the judgment
of 13 January 2003 on appeal and remitted the matter to the Town
Court for fresh consideration.
On
9 October 2003 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s
claims without consideration on the merits. Referring to Ruling
No. 1-P adopted by the Constitutional Court on 25 January
2001, the court noted that current laws did not determine the grounds
or procedure for adjudicating a claim for damages on account of the
courts’ failure to comply with statutory time limits. In
particular, the court noted as follows:
“... pursuant to this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court of the Russian Federation, claims for compensation for damage
arising from unlawful actions of a judge should be adjudicated in
accordance with the rules – other than the rules of civil
procedure which are yet to be determined by the legislature
(including the rules governing the jurisdiction of this type of
case). The court does not contest the applicant’s
constitutional right to sue the state for compensation in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. However, given that Ruling No. 1-P of the
Constitutional Court refers to certain rules of adjudication, which
have not yet been determined, the court considers that it should
discontinue the consideration of the [applicant’s] claims.”
On
13 May 2004 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 October
2003 on appeal, finding as follows:
“The current rules governing the adjudication of
civil claims, as set forth in the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, do
not take into account all the specifics of the matters concerning
compensation for damage caused by unlawful actions or failure to act
on the part of a court (or judge) when the case is not considered on
the merits. This is supported by the prescription made by the
Constitutional Court for the [Parliament of Russia] to legislate on
the issue. Therefore, the current rules [of civil procedure] do not
apply to the adjudication of the applicant’s claims.”
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
Article 1064 of the Civil Code contains general
provisions on liability for the infliction of damage. It establishes
that damage inflicted on the person or property of an individual
shall be reimbursed in full by the person who inflicted the damage
(Article 1064 § 1).
Article 1070 of the Civil Code determines liability
for the damage caused by unlawful actions of law-enforcement
authorities or courts. In particular, it is established that the
federal or regional treasury shall be liable for the damage sustained
by an individual in the framework of the administration of justice
provided that the judge’s guilt has been established in a final
criminal conviction (Article 1070 § 2).
By Ruling no. 1-P of 25 January 2001, the
Constitutional Court found that Article 1070 § 2 of the Civil
Code was compatible with the Constitution in so far as it provided
for special conditions on State liability for the damage caused in
the framework of administration of justice. It clarified,
nevertheless, that the term “administration of justice”
did not cover the judicial proceedings in their entirety, but only
extended to judicial acts touching upon the merits of a case. Other
judicial acts – mainly of a procedural nature – fell
outside the scope of the notion “administration of justice”.
State liability for the damage caused by such procedural acts or
failures to act, such as a breach of the reasonable length of court
proceedings, could arise even in the absence of a final criminal
conviction of a judge if the fault of the judge has been established
in civil proceedings. The Constitutional Court emphasised, moreover,
that the constitutional right to compensation by the State for the
damage should not be tied in with the personal fault of a judge. An
individual should be able to obtain compensation for any damage
incurred through a violation by a court of his or her right to a fair
trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. The
Constitutional Court held that Parliament should legislate on the
grounds and procedure for compensation by the State for the damage
caused by unlawful acts or failures to act of a court or a judge and
determine territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over such
claims.
The
Russian Code of Civil Procedure established that a civil claim should
be dismissed, in particular, if it was not amenable to examination in
civil proceedings (Article 220).
THE LAW
I. AS TO LOCUS STANDI OF MR VOBLIKOV
Following
the applicant’s death, her son Mr Ya. Voblikov expressed the
wish to pursue the application. He submitted that he was her heir and
that he intended “to fulfil his mother’s will to obtain
the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in her case”.
The
Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died
in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the
statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members
expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. It
has done so most frequently in cases which primarily involved
pecuniary, and, for this reason, transferable claims. However, the
question whether such claims are transferable to the persons seeking
to pursue an application is not the exclusive criterion. In fact,
human rights cases before the Court generally also have a moral
dimension and persons near to an applicant may have a legitimate
interest in seeing to it that justice is done even after the
applicant’s death (see, among other authorities, Horváthová
v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005).
Having
regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts
that the applicant’s son has a legitimate interest in pursuing
the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will
therefore continue dealing with the case at his request.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant complained under Article 41 of the Convention that the
domestic courts had refused to consider her claims for damages
against the Treasury of the Russian Federation. The Court will
examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a]
... tribunal ...”
The
Government did not comment.
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 Article 6 § 1 secures to
everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and
obligations brought before a court or tribunal. In this way, that
provision embodies the “right to court”, of which the
right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before a
court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only; however, it is
an aspect that makes it in fact possible to benefit from the further
guarantees laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 6 (see Sergey
Smirnov v. Russia, no. 14085/04, § 25, 22 December
2009, and Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, § 45,
10 January 2006).
The
“right to court” is not absolute and may be subject to
limitations. The Court must be satisfied that the limitations applied
do not restrict or reduce the access afforded to the individual in
such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of that right
is impaired. Furthermore, the Court underlines that a limitation will
not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 unless it
pursues a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of
proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim
sought to be achieved (see Sergey Smirnov, cited above, §§
26-27; Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no.
73547/01, § 58, 26 July 2005; and Kreuz v. Poland,
19 June 2001, no. 28249/95, §§ 54 and 55, ECHR 2001 VI).
Finally,
the Court reiterates that it is not its task to take the place of the
domestic courts. It is primarily for the national authorities,
notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic
legislation. The Court’s role is confined to ascertaining
whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the
Convention (see Société Anonyme Sotiris and Nikos
Koutras Attee v. Greece, no. 39442/98, § 17,
ECHR 2000 XII).
In
the instant case the applicant attempted to sue the Russian treasury
for the damage caused by the allegedly excessive length of civil
proceedings concerning her pension claims. The possibility of lodging
such claims was envisaged in Articles 1064 and 1070 of the Civil Code
of the Russian Federation (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above). The
Constitutional Court clarified that State liability for the damage
caused by any violation of the litigant’s right to a fair
trial, including a breach of the reasonable-time guarantee, would
arise even if the fault of the judge was established in civil –
rather than criminal – proceedings and that the right to
compensation by the State for the damage should not be tied in with
the personal fault of a judge (see paragraph 17 above). It also held
that an individual should be able to obtain compensation for any
damage incurred through a violation of his or her right to a fair
trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. It follows
that the applicant’s claim concerned her civil rights of a
pecuniary nature and should have been amenable to examination in
civil proceedings.
The
domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s claim on the grounds
that the legislature had not yet determined jurisdiction over such
claims. This limitation on the right to court excluded any
possibility of having such a claim examined and, accordingly,
undermined the essence of the applicant’s right of access to
court. The Government did not offer any justification for the lack of
legislation governing the procedure for examination of such claims.
Accordingly,
the Court finds that the applicant was denied the right of access to
court and that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention in that regard.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Lastly,
the applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the
Convention that the two sets of civil proceedings in her case had
been unreasonably long. However, having regard to all the material in
its possession, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a
violation of the provisions invoked. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
IV. 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
applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage.
The
Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations should
not give rise to an award of compensation. In any event, they
considered the applicant’s claims excessive and
unsubstantiated.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and
frustration as a result of the refusal of the domestic courts to
entertain his claims. In these circumstances, the Court considers
that the applicant’s suffering and frustration cannot be
compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. The particular
amount claimed is however excessive. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 7,200 for
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the
above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no
call to make an award under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the complaint concerning the domestic
courts’ refusal to consider on the merits the applicant’s
claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting
from the allegedly excessive length of civil proceedings 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 Mr Yaroslav Voblikov, the late
applicant’s son, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, EUR 7,200 (seven thousand and two 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 7 June 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President
