[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF VYALYKH v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 5225/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22
February 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 Vyalykh v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 February 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 5225/06) 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, Mr Andrey Anatolevich
Vyalykh (“the applicant”), on 23 December 2005.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
4 April 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 1960 and lives in Irkutsk.
- In
October 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the
applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of weapons. On 14 March
1994 he was arrested and spent ten months and three days in custody
until his release on a written undertaking not to leave the town.
- On
12 February 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court acquitted the applicant.
On 13 March 2002 the judgment became final.
- The
applicant sued the Irkutsk Regional prosecutor's office and the
Ministry of Finance for compensation for damage.
- On
7 October 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk accepted the
action and awarded the applicant 230,099.52 Russian roubles (RUR,
approximately 6,415 euros) in compensation for damage and RUR 35,000
(approximately 976 euros) in costs for legal representation. The
judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 26 November 2004.
- On
5 April 2006 the sum of the judgment award was credited to the
applicant's bank account.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Articles 1, 6 and 13 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment 7 October 2004, as
upheld on appeal on 26 November 2004, was not 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 these 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...”
- The
Government argued that the judgment had been fully enforced in April
2006.
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 considered that the judgment of 7 October 2004 had been
enforced in good time.
- The
applicant maintained his complaints.
- The
Court observes that on 7 October 2004 the applicant obtained a
judgment in his favour by which he was to be paid a certain sum of
money by the Ministry of Finance, a State body. The judgment was
upheld on appeal and became final and enforceable on 26 November
2004. It was fully enforced on 5 April 2006 when the judgment debt
was paid to the applicant. Thus, the judgment of 7 October 2004, as
upheld on 26 November 2004, remained unenforced for approximately
fifteen months.
- 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
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 19 et seq., ECHR 2002 III;
Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; Gerasimova v. Russia,
no. 24669/02, § 17 et seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
The Court finds that by failing for more than sixteen months to
comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the
domestic authorities impaired the essence of his right to a court and
prevented him from receiving the money he had legitimately 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed RUR 2,107,373.22 in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing the interest rate on the sum of the judgment debt
calculated from 23 October 1993 to 5 April 2006. The applicant
further claimed EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that the sums were excessive and there was no
causal link between the alleged violation and the compensation
claimed in respect of pecuniary damage. If, however, the Court
decides to accept the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary
damage, the compensation should only be awarded for the period when
the Ministry of Finance was at fault for the non-enforcement of the
judgment of 7 October 2004. That period, according to the Government,
amounted to nine months and twelve days.
- The
Court reiterates that in the present case it has found a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
in that the award in the applicant's favour had not been paid to him
in good time. It recalls that the adequacy of the compensation would
be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various
circumstances liable to reduce the value of the award, such as an
extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova
v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005;
Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 36, 27 May
2004). The applicant produced a certificate by the Irkutsk Regional
Main Department of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation showing
the annual interest rates from October 1993 to April 2006. As the
Government did not furnish any objection to the applicant's method of
calculation of compensation, save for the period to be taken into
consideration, the Court accepts the applicant's claim in respect of
the pecuniary damage accrued in the period when the judgment of
7 October 2004, as upheld on appeal on 26 November 2004,
remained unenforced. Making its assessment on the basis of materials
submitted by the applicant, the Court awards him the sum of
RUR 40,148 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on that amount.
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce a judgment in his favour. However, the particular
amount claimed appears excessive. The Court takes into account the
relevant aspects, such as the length of the enforcement proceedings
and the nature of the award, and making its assessment on an
equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR 1,200 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed RUR 25,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. The sum represented lawyer's fees.
- The
Government argued that the sum claimed was excessive and
unreasonable.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his 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. In the present case, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim
for legal expenses as the applicant was not represented by a lawyer
in the Strasbourg proceedings. 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 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- 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, the following
amounts:
(i) RUR 40,148 (forty thousand one hundred and forty-eight Russian
roubles) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,200 (one thousand and two hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of the settlement;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 February 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
