[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF GALKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 33459/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 October
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 Galkin 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 D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S.
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 33459/04) 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 Mr Vladimir Vasilyevich Galkin (“the
applicant”), on 29 July 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
6 March 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the non-enforcement of a judgment in the applicant favour
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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Barnaul, the Altay Region.
- On
20 December 1998 police searched the applicant's house.
- On
20 June 2000 the Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul found, upon
the applicant's complaint, that the search had been unlawful. The
judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force ten days
later. On 8 May 2001 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court
rejected the Prosecutor's application for supervisory review and
upheld the judgment of 20 June 2000.
- On
18 December 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul granted
the applicant's action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian
Federation for compensation of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a
result of the unlawful search and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian
roubles. By a decision of 24 March 2004 the Altay Regional Court
upheld the judgment on appeal. On 29 July 2004 the Oktyabrskiy
District Court issued a writ of execution.
- On
15 October 2004 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the
Ministry of Finance, but on 10 November 2004 the Ministry of Finance
returned it to the applicant on the ground that he had failed to
submit a duly certified copy of the judgment of 18 December 2003 and
a payment request with indication of his bank account.
- On
6 December 2004 the applicant re-submitted the enforcement materials
to the Ministry of Finance. However, on 12 January 2005 the Ministry
of Finance returned them to the applicant for the reason that the
date of delivery of the judgment had been indicated incorrectly.
- On
8 February 2005 the enforcement documents were once again forwarded
to the Ministry of Finance.
- The
date on which the judgment was enforced is disputed by the parties.
According to the Government, the judgment was fully enforced on 2 May
2005. From the applicant's submissions it follows that he had
received the amount awarded by the judgment of 18 December 2003 on
2 May 2006.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 about the non-enforcement of the
judgment of 18 December 2003, as upheld on 24 March 2004. The Court
will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These provisions, in so
far as relevant, 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.
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 Court notes that the applicant's 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 Government submitted that the applicant had
forwarded the enforcement materials in respect of the judgment of 18
December 2003 to the Ministry of Finance only on 15 October 2004.
They further pointed out that the judgment in question was fully
enforced on 2 May 2005. Therefore, the delay in the enforcement of
the judgment amounted to six months and 23 days and should be
considered reasonable. In support of their arguments the Government
provided the Court with a copy of the payment order No. 5683
issued on 2 May 2006. Referring to the Court's decision in Presnyakov
v. Russia case (no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005), the Government
concluded that the applicant's complaint should be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded.
- The applicant did not dispute that he had forwarded
the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance on 15 October 2004.
However, he insisted on the fact that the judgment of 18 December
2003 was fully enforced only on 2 May 2006.
- The
Court observes that a copy of the payment order provided by the
Government dated 2 May 2006. The order bore a confirmation signed by
a representative of the Moscow department of the Federal Treasury
that the payment had been made on 2 May 2006. It follows that the
judgment of 18 December 2003 was enforced in full on 2 May 2006.
- The
Court further observes that on 18 December 2003 the applicant
obtained a judgment in his favour by which the Ministry of Finance
was to pay him a compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a
result of the unlawful search of his house. The judgment acquired
legal force on 24 March 2004 after it had been upheld on appeal.
The applicant duly submitted the writ of execution to the Ministry of
Finance on 15 October 2004, but the judgment had not been enforced
until 2 May 2006. Thus, the period of the non-enforcement imputable
to the State amounts to one year and six months.
18. The Court has frequently found
violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 in cases raising similar issues to the ones in the
present case (see Malinovskiy v.
Russia, no. 41302/02, ECHR
2005 ..., Mikryukov v. Russia,
no. 7363/04, 8 December 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. Having regard to
its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing for a
long period of time 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 reasonably expected to receive.
- There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the applicant complained under Articles 6 and 8 about the
insufficient amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage awarded
by the domestic courts. However, having regard to all the material in
its possession, and in so far as this complaint falls within its
competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance
of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention
or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must
be rejected as being manifestly ill founded, pursuant to Article
35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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
applicant claimed 5,000 Russian roubles (RUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage and 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had failed to substantiate
his claim for pecuniary damage and therefore it should be rejected.
As regards the non-pecuniary damage, the
Government considered that the applicant's claim was excessive and
unreasonable. They believed that the amount of the compensation
should be similar to the ones awarded in the cases of Shvedov
v. Russia (no. 69306/01, 20 October
2005) and Wasserman v. Russia
(no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004).
- The Court notes that the applicant failed to
substantiate his claim for pecuniary damage. It accepts the
Government's arguments in this respect and rejects this claim. On the
other hand, the Court considers that the
applicant must have suffered certain distress and frustration
resulting from the State's authorities' failure to enforce the
judgment in his favour. However, the amount claimed appears
excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed RUR 55,000 for legal costs, of which RUR 10,000
represented the amount he had paid for drafting his application to
the Court. He also claimed RUR 400 for postal expenses. The applicant
submitted a receipt only for RUR 10,000.
- The
Government argued that only expenses in the amount of RUR 10,030
were supported by the relevant documents, while the rest of the
applicant's claims were unsubstantiated. They considered that the
expenses for drafting the application to the Court, as indicated by
the applicant, were excessive.
- 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 considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 285 covering costs under all
heads.
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
non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of
the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 18 December 2003;
- 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 900 (nine
hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 285 (two
hundred and eighty five euros) in respect of costs and expenses,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts;
(b) that the above amounts shall be converted into Russian roubles at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(c) 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 4 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
