European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KONSTANTINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 15364/11 and 2 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT
(Merits)

STRASBOURG

22 October 2019

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

In the case of Konstantinov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Alena Poláčková, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2019,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in three applications (nos. 15364/11, 49623/11 and 55790/11) 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 three Russian nationals. Their details and the dates of their applications to the Court appear below in the Appendix.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3.  On 18 May 2015 the complaints concerning non-enforcement of the final judgments and insufficiency of compensation for non-enforcement were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applications nos. 49623/11 and 55790/11 were declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. The Government did not object to the examination of the application by a Committee.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicants obtained final court judgments in their favour, according to which different State authorities were ordered to pay them lump sums. Since there was a delay in their enforcement, the applicants sought compensation in this respect under the Compensation Act. Their claims for compensation were granted. The respective information about the judgments in the applicants’ favour, courts decisions concerning the compensation awards and respective sums are indicated in the Appendix.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

5.  Federal Law № 68-ФЗ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” of 30 April 2010 (in force as of 4 May 2010) provides that in case of a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or of the right to enforcement of a final judgment, the Russian citizens are entitled to seek compensation of the non-pecuniary damage.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

7.  The applicants complained that the final judgments in their favour were not enforced whatsoever. They further complained about insufficient compensation under the Compensation Act. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which in the relevant parts read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... 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

8.  The Court notes that these 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

9.  The Government submitted that the non-enforcement of the judgments was a result of the applicants’ own behaviour obstructing payment of the award or the lack of funds in the regional budgets. Finally they submitted that the applicants had already received compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of non-enforcement.

10.  The applicants disagreed with the Government’s submissions and maintained their complaints.

11.  The Court notes at the outset that it is not in dispute between the parties that the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour remained unenforced. It further reiterates that where a State has taken a significant step by introducing a compensatory remedy, the Court must leave a wider margin of appreciation to the State to allow it to organise the remedy in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and consonant with the standard of living in the country concerned. The Court has therefore been prepared to accept that the compensation amounts awarded by domestic courts for violations of the Convention rights may be somewhat lower than those granted by the Court in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 189, ECHR 2006‑V). In the present case, however, the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts falls far below what the Court awards in comparable situations in respect of non-pecuniary damage. With reference to the Convention criteria as they were set out in the pilot judgment (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 154-157, ECHR 2009), the Court considers that the amounts awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts are unreasonably low, taking into consideration notably the nature of the court award at issue and the extremely long delay in enforcement.

12.  The Court observes that it has already found violations of the Convention on account of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments and insufficient compensation granted in that respect under the Compensation Act (see Lavrov v. Russia, no. 33422/03, §§ 35-39, 17 January 2012). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.

13.  The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with their obligation to promptly enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour.

14.  There has accordingly been violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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.”

Damage

16.  The applicants submitted, as far as their admissible complaints were concerned, claims in respect of pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage ranging from 3,400 euros (EUR) to EUR 115,187. They further submitted claims in respect of costs and expenses (see the Appendix).

17.  In all cases, the Government contested the applicants’ methods of calculation as regards pecuniary damage. They further contended that the applicants did not sustain any pecuniary damage. As for non-pecuniary damage the Government referred to the compensation awarded at the domestic level as being in compliance with the Court’s case law.

18.  The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is to ensure that the applicant, as far as possible, is put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A no. 85) In this respect, it observes that none of the parties submitted any evidence demonstrating the status of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour – whether they have been eventually enforced or not and in the latter situation, whether there are still any reasonable prospects for their execution domestically, notably in view of possible statutes of limitations (see, for the most recent, Tesayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 20432/11). Also, there is no indication on whether the applicants applied again for additional compensation under the Compensation Act in respect of the new delays.

19.  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision. It is therefore necessary to reserve the matter, due regard being had to the possibility of an agreement between the respondent State and the applicant (Rule 75 §§ 1 and 4 of the Rules of Court).

20.  Accordingly, the Court reserves this question and invites the Government and the applicants to notify it, within six months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, of any agreement that they may reach.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the applications admissible;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of all applicants;

4.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of all applicants;

5.      Holds that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision; accordingly

(a)   reserves the said question in whole;

(b)  invites the Government and the applicants to submit, within six months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;

6.      Reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President the power to fix the same if need be.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

  Stephen Phillips                                                                  Alena Poláčková
       Registrar                                                                              President

APPENDIX