[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF PITELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 4874/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
June 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 Pitelin and Others v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni,
judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 4874/03) 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 four Russian nationals, whose names are listed
in the schedule, on 28 January 2003.
- The
applicants were represented by Ms N. Mizhayeva, a lawyer practising
in Astrakhan. 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
6 December 2005 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 are Russian nationals who live in the town of Astrakhan in
the Astrakhan Region. They are employees of a private airline
company, OAO “Aviakompaniya 'Astrakhanskiye Avialinii'”.
- On
the dates set out in the schedule the Justice of the Peace of the 6th
Court Circuit of the Sovetskiy District of Astrakhan accepted the
applicants' actions against their employer. The employer was to pay
them certain amounts in wage arrears and work-related benefits. The
judgments were not appealed against and became final.
- On an unspecified date the President of the Astrakhan
Regional Court lodged an application seeking a supervisory review of
the judgments made in the applicants' favour.
- On
14 August 2002 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, by way
of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments and remitted
the cases for re-examination. The Presidium noted that the Justice of
the Peace had erred in application of the “material and
procedural law”.
- On
3 October 2002 the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit
dismissed the applicants' actions in full. The judgment was not
appealed against and became final.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE
JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR
- The
applicants complained that the quashing of the final judgments made
in their favour violated their “right to a court” and
their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court considers
that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 ... 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. Submissions by the parties
- The
Government argued that the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court
quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour with a view to
correcting the judicial error committed by the Justice of the Peace
of the 6th Court Circuit.
- The
applicants averred that the quashing of the final judgments had
irremediably impaired the principle of legal certainty and had
deprived them of the right to receive money they had been entitled to
receive.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(a) Admissibility
- The Court notes that this complaint 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 reiterates that the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal
as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be
interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which
declares, in its relevant part, the rule of law to be part of the
common heritage of the Contracting States. One of the fundamental
aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which
requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally
determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question
(see Brumărescu v. Romania, judgment of 28 October 1999,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-VII, § 61).
- This
principle insists that no party is entitled to seek re-opening of the
proceedings merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh
decision of the case. Higher courts' power to quash or alter binding
and enforceable judicial decisions should be exercised for correction
of fundamental defects. The mere possibility of two views on the
subject is not a ground for re-examination. Departures from that
principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of
a substantial and compelling character (see, mutatis mutandis,
Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X; and
Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01,
§ 25, 18 November 2004).
15. The
Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the
right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations
brought before a court or tribunal. In this way it embodies the
“right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is
the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters,
constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be illusory if a
Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final and binding
judicial decision to be quashed by a higher court on an application
made by a State official whose power to lodge such an
application is not subject to any time-limit, with the result that
the judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely (see Ryabykh,
cited above, §§ 54-56).
- The
Court observes that on the dates set out in the schedule the Justice
of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit accepted the applicants'
actions and granted them sums of money representing wage arrears and
work-related benefits. The judgments were not appealed against and
became binding and enforceable. On 14 August 2002 that judgments were
quashed by way of supervisory review initiated by the President of
the Astrakhan Regional Court who was a State official but not a party
to the proceedings (see paragraph 6 above).
- The
Court has found a violation of an applicant's “right to a
court” guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in
many cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and
binding, was subsequently quashed by a higher court on an application
by a State official whose power to intervene was not subject to any
time-limit (see Roseltrans v. Russia, no. 60974/00,
§§ 27-28, 21 July 2005; Volkova
v. Russia, no. 48758/99, §§ 34-36, 5
April 2005; and Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51-56).
- Having
examined the materials submitted to it, the Court observes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present
case. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the
quashing of the judgments given in the applicants' cases by way of
supervisory-review proceedings.
2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(a) Admissibility
- The Court observes that the applicants' complaint
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is
not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
(b) Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding
and enforceable judgment constitutes the judgment beneficiary's
“possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. Quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference
with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see,
among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00,
§ 69, 6 October 2005).
- The
Court observes that the final and enforceable judgments by which the
applicants had been awarded certain sums of money were quashed on a
supervisory review on 14 August 2002. The applicants' claims were
sent for re-consideration, following which the Justice of the Peace
of the 6th Court Circuit dismissed them in full. Thus, the applicants
were prevented from receiving the initial awards through no fault of
their own. The quashing of the enforceable judgments frustrated the
applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decisions and deprived
them of an opportunity to receive the money they had legitimately
expected to receive. In these circumstances, the Court considers that
the quashing of the enforceable judgments, as listed in the schedule,
by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on the
applicants and was incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
There has therefore been a violation of that Article.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Without
invoking any Convention provision, the applicants complained that the
proceedings after the supervisory review of 14 August 2002 had been
unfair as the Justice of the Peace had misinterpreted the domestic
law, had incorrectly assessed the facts and had not examined their
arguments in detail and that other employees had been awarded bigger
awards in the similar situations.
- The
Court notes that the applicants did not appeal against the
first-instance judgment of 3 October 2002 to a higher-instance court
in order to obtain redress in this respect. It follows that this part
of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
III. 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
applicants claimed sums representing judgment awards as listed in the
schedule in respect of pecuniary damage. They further claimed 100,000
euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that there was no causal link between the alleged
violation and the pecuniary damage claimed. They further submitted
that the claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage were unreasonable
and excessive.
- As
regards the claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court, having
regard to the nature of the violation found, considers it appropriate
to award the applicants the sums which they would have received had
the judgments in their favour not been quashed (see the schedule),
plus any tax that may be chargeable (cf. Stetsenko v. Russia,
no. 878/03, § 69, 5 October 2006).
- The
Court further considers that the applicants suffered distress and
frustration resulting from the quashing of the judicial decisions by
way of supervisory-review proceedings. Nevertheless, the amounts
claimed are excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis,
the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 2,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the
above amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating
to the proceedings before the domestic courts or the Convention
organs and this is not a matter which the Court will examine on its
own motion (see Motière v. France, no. 39615/98,
§ 26, 5 December 2000).
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 complaint concerning the quashing
of the final judgments issued in the applicants' favour admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- 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, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, shall pay the applicants in respect of pecuniary
damage the awards made under the judgments in their favour as listed
in the schedule, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b)
that the respondent State shall pay each of the applicants, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the
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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
SCHEDULE
|
NAME OF THE APPLICANT
|
YEAR OF BIRTH
|
DATE OF THE JUDGMENT
|
AWARDS UNDER
THE JUDGMENT
(RUR)
|
|
Anatoliy Dmitriyevich
Pitelin
|
1949
|
8 February 2002
|
115,538
|
|
Aleksandr Nikolayevich
Afanasyev
|
1964
|
8 February 2002
|
68,708.11
|
|
Yuriy Vasilyevich
Matyunin
|
1965
|
25 January 2002
|
64,875
|
|
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich
Gomzyakov
|
1962
|
14 February 2002
|
68,251.60
|
