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 >>
VLADIMIR MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA - 38202/07 [2012] ECHR 67 (17 January 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/67.html
Cite as:
[2012] ECHR 67
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF VLADIMIR MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 38202/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17
January 2012
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 Vladimir Melnikov
v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 December 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 38202/07)
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 Vladimir Alekseyevich Melnikov (“the
applicant”), on 15 July 2007.
2. The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
On
22 April 2008 the President of the
First Section decided to give notice of the application to the
Government.
4. In
accordance with the pilot judgment Burdov v. Russia (no. 2)
(no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ...), the application was
adjourned pending its resolution at the domestic level.
As
the matter was not resolved at the domestic level, the Court decided
to resume examination of the present application.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1957 and lives in
Vladikavkaz, Republic of North Ossetia-Alania.
By
a judgment of 30 April 2002 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz
Garrison granted the applicant’s complaint against the
commander of the North-Caucasus Military Institute of the Interior
Armed Forces and, among other things, recovered in his favour a
number of unpaid allowances due to the applicant for his service in
the conditions of an armed conflict. The Court did not mention any
specific amounts, instead suggesting that the debtor calculate them
on a certain basis.
The
above judgment was not appealed and became final. It was enforced in
the larger part on 11 July 2008, with only the food allowance
remaining unpaid.
On
8 December 2008 the applicant was paid the outstanding food
allowance, and the judgment of 30 April 2002 was thus enforced in
full.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
Without
relying on any specific provisions of the Convention, the applicant
complained about the authorities’ delayed enforcement of the
judgment of 30 April 2002. The Court will consider his complaint
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, which in the relevant part read as follows:
“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.”
A. Admissibility
The
Government requested that the application be struck out of the
Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1
(a) of the Convention arguing that the applicant had withdrawn his
application following enforcement of the judgment concerned.
Based
on the applicant’s correspondence and observations, the Court
finds that he has no intention of withdrawing his application despite
the fact that the judgment concerned has now been enforced. In these
circumstances the Court cannot accept the view that the applicant
lost interest in his application and rejects the Government’s
request to strike the case out.
The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The
parties agreed that the judgment of 30 April 2002 had
been fully enforced on 8 December 2008.
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).
The
Court observes that the judgment in the applicant’s favour was
enforced approximately six years and seven months after its delivery,
and that no delays were attributable to the applicant. It considers
that this delay was incompatible with the Convention standards.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. 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 149,916 Russian roubles
(approximately 3,730 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary
damage. He also requested to be awarded compensation for
non-pecuniary damage resulting from the delay in the enforcement of
the judgment, to be calculated in accordance with the Court’s
own practice.
The
Government did not submit any relevant comments.
The
Court reiterates that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim
for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing
together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing
which it may reject the claim in whole or in part.
The
Court observes that the applicant did not substantiate the amount he
claimed as pecuniary damage and therefore rejects the claim.
On
the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered
distress and frustration owing to the authorities’ failure for
many years to enforce the judgment in his favour. Deciding on an
equitable basis and having regard to all relevant factors (see Burdov
(no. 2), cited above, §§ 154-157), it awards the
applicant EUR 6,000 as non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also requested to be awarded costs and
expenses according to the Court’s practice.
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.
Regard
being had to the applicant’s failure to substantiate any
specified claim, the Court will not make any award under this head.
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 application
admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of non-enforcement;
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 6,000 (six thousand 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 17 January 2012, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President
