[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF BEREZKINA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 3509/06)
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 Berezkina 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. 3509/06) 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 Lyudmila Vasilyevna
Berezkina (“the applicant”), on 19 November 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practising in
Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mrs V.
Milinchuk.
- On
25 September 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
applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Voronezh.
- From
June 1998 to April 1999 she received her old-age pension several
months in arrears.
- The
applicant lodged an action against the Levoberezhniy District Social
Security Authority of Voronezh for index-linking of her delayed
pension payments in line with inflation.
- On
24 November 2000 the Levoberezhniy District Court of Voronezh granted
the applicant's claim and awarded her 1,101.02 Russian roubles. The
judgment came into force on 5 December 2000.
- The
applicant's requests for execution of the judgment were to no avail
on the ground that the defendant did not have funds.
- The
judgment was enforced on 2 December 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The applicant complained about the long
non-enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. She relied on
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
which, in so far as relevant, provide 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.
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 did not make any submissions as to the law.
- The
applicant maintained her complaint.
- 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
Court first notes that the judgment in the applicant's favour, which
came into force on 5 December 2000, remained without enforcement
until 2 December 2005, that is for almost five years.
- The Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in many cases
raising issues similar to the ones in the
present case (see Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III; and, more recently, Kazartsev
v. Russia, no. 26410/02, 2 November 2006).
- In
view of its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing
for such a substantial period to comply with the enforceable judgment
in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities impaired the
essence of her right to a court and prevented her from receiving the
money which she was entitled to receive.
- 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 3,900 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government made no comment.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have suffered certain
distress and frustration as a result of the violations at issue. It
takes into account the relevant aspects, in particular, the length of
the enforcement and the fact that the nature of the award in the
present case was connected to the applicant's livelihood. Making its
assessment on equitable basis, it grants the applicant's claim and
awards her EUR 3,900 in respect of non pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not seek reimbursement of her costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. Accordingly,
the Court does 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 to the
Convention;
- 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 3,900
(three thousand nine hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into the national 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 amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points.
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
