[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF
VORONIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 40543/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 December
2008
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 Voronin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 40543/04) 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 a Russian national, Mr Pavel Ivanovich Voronin
(“the applicant”), on 11 October 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr A. Kazmin, an advocate practising in
Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
22 November 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Novovoronezh, a town in the
Voronezh Region.
- As
a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to benefits.
Considering himself underpaid, he brought two actions against a local
welfare authority.
- On
6 May 2004 the Novovoronezh Town Court awarded the applicant
92,648.54 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears. This judgment became
binding on 17 May 2004 and was enforced on 11 November 2005.
- On
10 May 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,080,629.27
in arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic payments. This judgment
became binding on 18 July 2006. The welfare authority considered that
the award contained an error to the extent that it had not taken into
account a past payment. For this reason, on 27 November 2006 the Town
Court clarified the judgment and reduced the award to RUB 987,980.73.
The judgment was enforced by 29 November 2007.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months. Under
section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of
Finance must enforce a judgment within three months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments.
Insofar as relevant, these Articles 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
Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible.
The
complaint was incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae.
The litigation had concerned the general application of welfare
legislation, and hence was not “civil” within the meaning
of Article 6. Likewise, the fruit of the litigation had not been a
“possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1.
The
applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. He could have
brought a negligence action against the authority responsible for the
enforcement, brought an action for non-pecuniary damages, and
requested the awards' adjustment for the cost of living.
With
regard to the judgment of 6 May 2004, the complaint had been abusive,
because the applicant had failed to inform the Court of its
enforcement. The authorities had been prepared to offer the applicant
compensation for the delay, but he had refused.
With
regard to the judgment of 10 May 2006, the complaint was
manifestly ill-founded, because this judgment had been enforced
within a reasonable time after its clarification. The clarification
had been necessary, because the judgment had contained an error, and
its implicit enforcement would have unduly enriched the applicant.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint, incidentally challenging the
domestic courts' findings as to the amount of his benefits.
- The
Court finds that the applicant's dispute with the welfare authority
concerned his individual benefits and hence fell within the ambit of
Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see,
mutatis mutandis, Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01,
§ 28–31, 18 January 2007). It follows that this
complaint cannot be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae
with the provisions of the Convention.
- With
regard to non-exhaustion, the Court finds that the applicant had no
remedies satisfying the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention. A complaint about the authorities' negligence would have
been ineffective (see Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania
(dec.), no. 41510/98, 24 October 2000;
Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, §
16, 24 February 2005). A claim for non-pecuniary damages has not been
shown to be sufficiently certain in practice so as to offer the
applicant reasonable prospects of success as required by the
Convention. An adjustment for the cost of living was equally
inadequate because it did not compensate
non-pecuniary damage. It follows that this complaint cannot be
rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
- As
to the alleged abuse, the Court does not detect any wilful
misrepresentation of facts on the applicant's part.
- 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 an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement
of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov
v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III). To decide if the delay was
reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement
proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and
what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan
v. Russia,
no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
- In
the case at hand, the enforcement of the two judgments lasted one
year and five months, and one year and four months, respectively. The
Government insist that the second period should run from the date of
the judgment's clarification, but the Court rejects this argument:
the clarification was requested by the welfare authority not because
the judgment had been ambiguous, but because the authority had
disagreed with the amount of the award. This disagreement cannot be
considered as an objective obstacle to the enforcement.
- In
view of the above, the Court considers that there has 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 RUB 1,597,604.80 in respect of pecuniary damage.
This amount represented his estimate of allegedly underpaid benefits
and his inflationary loss for the delayed enforcement of the judgment
of 10 May 2006.
- The
Government contested this claim as unfounded. Russian courts had been
better placed to determine the applicant's inflationary loss, and it
had remained open to the applicant to apply there.
- The
Court discerns a causal link between the violation found and the
alleged inflationary loss only. Making its estimate on the basis of
information at its disposal, the Court awards 4,500 euros (EUR) under
this head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested this claim as excessive.
- The
Court accepts that the applicant must have been distressed by the
delayed enforcement of the judgments. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 1,200 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim for the costs and expenses. Accordingly, the
Court makes no 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;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to
pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,200 (one thousand two
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(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 4 December 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
