European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF BELOVA v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 4629/07)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

22 November 2016

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Belova v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Helena Jäderblom, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 4629/07) 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, Ms Yelena Vasilyevna Belova (“the applicant”), on 25 December 2006.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  On 14 January 2009 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow.

5.  On 11 January 1999 the parish of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos (the “Parish”) brought a civil claim against the applicant and her family claiming title to the land plot de facto used by the latter.

6.  In May 1999 the applicant brought a counterclaim seeking annulment of the Parish’s title to the land plot.

7.  On 23 November 1999 the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Parish’s claim and dismissed the counterclaim lodged by the applicant.

8.  On 18 February 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 23 November 1999 on appeal.

9.  In July 2000 the city prosecutor’s office, upon the applicant’s request, asked for the supervisory review of the above judgments.

10.  On 24 August 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 23 November 1999 and 18 February 2000 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

11.  It appears that both parties amended their claims in part for several times. The applicant eventually sought recognition of her property title to the land plot in question.

12.  On 4 May 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in full. The Parish appealed.

13.  On 11 August 2005 the City Court upheld the judgment of 4 May 2005 on appeal.

14.  It appears the judgment of 4 May 2005 was not enforced.

15.  On 25 December 2005 the Parish asked for the supervisory review of the judgments in the applicant’s favour.

16.  On 13 July 2006 the Presidium of the City Court quashed the judgments of 4 May and 11 August 2005 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

17.  On 31 January 2007 the proceedings discontinued due to the absence of the parties.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

18.  The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summed up in the Court’s judgment in the case of Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT’S FAVOUR

19.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgment in her favour. She further complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same facts. Both provisions, in so far as relevant, are read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time 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 ...”

A.  Admissibility

20.  The Court notes that those complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

21.  The Government argued that the supervisory review proceedings resulting in the quashing of the judgment at issue had been lawful: they had been initiated by the plaintiff within the time-limits provided by domestic law (Article 376 § 2 of the Civil Code of Procedure of Russia). The supervisory review courts had quashed lower courts’ judgments that had been based on an incorrect application of the substantive law, thus correcting flagrant injustices and eliminating dangerous precedents.

22.  The applicant reiterated her complaints.

23.  The Court observes that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of final judgments by way of supervisory review procedure, as in force at the material time (see Kot, cited above, § 29).

24.  Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the domestic judgment was set aside by way of a supervisory review solely on the ground that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law. The Court reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party’s disagreement with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant’s claim (see Kovalenko and others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 36299/03, 14222/04, 15030/04, 36581/04, 1407/05, 2071/05 and 24618/05, § 16, 8 December 2015). The Government did not put forward any argument which would enable the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

25.  The Court accordingly concludes that the quashing by way of supervisory review of the binding and enforceable judgment in the applicant’s favour amounts to a breach of the principle of legal certainty, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS

26.  The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings concerning her dispute over a plot of land had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, cited above.

27.  Having regard to the facts of this case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question, that is the quashing by way of supervisory review of the judgments, raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on this additional complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references).

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

28.  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

29.  The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.

30.  The Government considered her claim as being excessive and unreasonable.

31.  The Court finds that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. In these circumstances and having regard to the principles developed in its case-law on determination of compensation in similar cases and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damagе (see Goncharova and Others and 68 other “Privileged Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 23113/08 and 68 others, §§ 22-24, 15 October 2009).

B.  Costs and expenses

32.  The applicant did not submit claims for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court does not award her any sum under that head.

C.  Default interest

33.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,

1.  Declares the application admissible;

 

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review proceedings of the judgment in the applicant’s favour;

 

3.  Holds that it is not necessary to consider separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of proceedings;

 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay Ms Belova, within three months, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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;

 

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                     Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President