[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KLISHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 36074/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 April
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 Klishina and Others v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 36074/04) 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 nineteen Russian nationals (cf. the annex to
this judgment).
- The
applicants are represented before the Court by Mr Kiryanov and Ms
Kiryanova, lawyers practising in Taganrog. 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
10 July 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
applicants live in Taganrog, a town in the Rostov Region.
-
They are working as teachers in а
public secondary school No. 12. According to the internal school
rules they were entitled to compensation for books and other printed
materials. Following the judgments of 23, 24, 25 and 26 March 1999
delivered by the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region the
applicants were awarded certain sums of money for these purposes. As
the sums were paid only in December 2000 and thus partly lost their
purchasing power due to the inflation in Russia at the material time,
the applicants sought indexation of the sums.
- On
17 February 2004 the Justice of the Peace of the 4th Court
Circuit of Taganrog granted the applicants' claims and ordered the
Educational Department of the city of Taganrog to pay the applicants
from RUB 6,024 to 7,247 each depending on the individual situation of
the applicants (cf. the annex to this judgment). The judgment was not
appealed against and became final on 1 March 2004.
- The
judgment of 17 February 2004 was enforced in full on 3 June 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and complained about the
lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 February 2004. The
relevant parts of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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...”
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 admitted the violation of the
applicants' rights on account of the delayed enforcement of the
judgment but asked the Court to take into consideration the
relatively short period of the non-enforcement of the judgment in
comparison with similar cases (Poznakhirina v. Russia,
no. 25964/02, §§ 31-35, 24 February 2005;
Kazartseva and Others v. Russia, no. 13995/02, §§
43-46, 17 November 2005; Shestopalova and Others v. Russia,
no. 39866/02, §§ 30-33, 17 November 2005). The
Government noted that the judgment of 17 February 2004 was enforced
in full and that the sums awarded to the applicants by the national
court represented indexation of the untimely enforced judgments of
1999 and did not constitute the applicants' means of support.
- The
applicants did not dispute that the judgment of 17 February 2004 was
enforced in full on 3 June 2005 but nevertheless maintained their
complaints.
- The
Court observes that on 17 February 2004 the applicants obtained a
judgment in their favour by which they were to be paid certain sums
of money by the Educational Department of Taganrog, a State body. On
1 March 2004 the judgment became final and enforceable. However,
the judgment of 17 February 2004 remained without enforcement until 3
June 2005, that is for one year and three months. No justification
was advanced by the Government for this delay.
- 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, among
other authorities, Burdov, cited above, §§ 34 et
seq.; and, more recently, Shilyayev v. Russia, no.
9647/02, §§ 32 et seq., 6 October 2005, and Reynbakh v.
Russia, no. 23405/03, §§ 23 et seq., 29 September
2005).
-
Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that
the Government accepted that the applicants' rights under the
Convention had been violated and did 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 to comply with the enforceable judgment
in the applicants' favour for more than one year, the domestic
authorities impaired their right to a court and prevented them from
receiving the money they could reasonably have expected 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
applicants initially each claimed EUR 1,500 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. Later they reduced their claims to EUR 750 to
be paid to each of them.
- The Government argued that the claims for
non-pecuniary damage were wholly excessive and suggested that a
finding of a violation would by itself constitute sufficient just
satisfaction in the present case.
- The
Court considers that the applicants must have suffered distress and
frustration resulting from the State authorities' failure to enforce
the judgment in their favour. 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 each of the applicants EUR 200 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 317 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court in Strasbourg.
- The
Government noted that the applicants had failed to show that they
actually had incurred the expenses claimed as no documents certifying
these payments had been enclosed to the file.
- 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 as
the applicants did not submit any receipts or other vouchers in
support of that claim.
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 each of the applicants, the names of
which are listed in the annex to this judgment, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 200 (two
hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on
the above amount;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for
just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 April 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
ANNEX
|
NAME OF THE
APPLICANT
|
YEAR OF BIRTH
|
AWARDS UNDER THE
JUDGMENT OF 17 FEBRUARY 2004, RUB
|
|
Tatyana Alekseyevna
Klishina
|
1954
|
7,247. 25
|
|
Dmitry Svyatoslavovich
Kulinich
|
1974
|
6,328. 05
|
|
Irina Yevgenyevna
Sizova
|
1965
|
2,326. 81
|
|
Tatyana Alekseyevna
Boksha
|
1958
|
6,277. 59
|
|
Irina Genrichovna
Barkovskaya
|
1968
|
6,328. 05
|
|
Yelena Vladimirovna
Chistyakova
|
1951
|
6,267. 03
|
|
Svetlana
Vyacheslavovna Zinchenko
|
1971
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Yelena Viktorovna
Shamrayeva
|
1960
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Yelena Vladimirovna
Kononenko
|
1967
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Zoya Aleksandorvna
Volkova
|
1961
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Lyudmila Borisovna
Safonova
|
1939
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Yelena Nikolayevna
Stetsenko
|
1961
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Lyubov Nikolayevna
Dushina
|
1958
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Galina Vladimirovna
Golovenko
|
1969
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Lyudmila Ivanovna
Opryshko
|
1956
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Yuliya Grigoryevna
Koltanovskaya
|
1963
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Yelena Vasilyevna
Koltanovskaya
|
1941
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Yelena Petrovna
Sergienko
|
1960
|
6,024. 45
|
|
Yelena Vladimirovna
Shcherbakova
|
1964
|
6,024. 45
|
