BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF GLEBOV and GLEBOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 21777/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29
November 2007
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 Glebov and Glebova v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr A. Wampach, Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 21777/04) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Aleksey Grigoryevich
Glebov and Mrs Svetlana Mitrofanovna Glebova (“the
applicants”), on 27 April 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
27 June 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The
applicants were born in 1936 and 1939 respectively and live in
Voronezh.
- The
applicants sued the local Social Security Committee for an adjustment
of their pensions in line with inflation. By judgments of 25 January
2001, the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded them
1,066.98 and 1,083.88 Russian roubles, respectively.
- The
monies were paid to the applicants on 19 October 2006.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- Referring
to Articles 2, 14 and 17 of the Convention, the applicants complained
that the judgments of 25 January 2001 had not been enforced in good
time. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002 III). The relevant parts
of those provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... 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
- The Court notes that the application 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
Government acknowledged a violation of the applicants' rights under
Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
applicants submitted that the judgments of 25 January 2001 had been
enforced in October 2006.
- The
Court observes that the judgments of 25 January 2001 had been
enforced in full on 19 October 2006. Thus, they remained without
enforcement for more than five years.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues
similar to the ones in the present case (see Burdov,
cited above, § 35; Wasserman v. Russia, no.
15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; and Gerasimova
v. Russia, no. 24669/02, § 17
et seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by
failing, for years, to comply with the enforceable judgments in the
applicants' favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of
their right to a court and prevented them from receiving the money
they could reasonably have expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 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.”
- The
applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André
Wampach Loukis Loucaides
Deputy Registrar President
