[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ISAKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 20745/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 June
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 Isakov 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 29 May 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 20745/04) 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 Aleksandr Kudabertovich
Isakov (“the applicant”), on 25 May 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P.A. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at
the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
12 September 2005 the Court gave notice of the application to the
Government. It also decided
to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3). The
Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and
merits, but the Court dismissed this objection.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Kosta Khetagurova, a village
in Karachay-Cherkessia.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- In
1990 the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying a
car. The State failed to provide the car, and the applicant had to
apply to a court.
- On
19 December 2002 the Mirninskiy District Court of Yakutia awarded the
applicant 138,967 Russian roubles against the Ministry of Finance. On
5 February 2003 the judgment became binding, but was not
enforced.
- On
15 July 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia allowed
the Ministry’s supervisory-review complaint, and quashed the
judgment on the ground that the district court had misinterpreted
material law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a judgment must be enforced in two months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained that the non-enforcement and subsequent quashing
of the judgment breached Article 6 § 1of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As far 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 asked the Court to strike the application out because the
applicant’s letters to the Court contained insults. The Court
rejects this request, noting that the Government have not specified
which expressions they took for insults, and that the applicant has
apologised for any perceived harshness of language.
- 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
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Government argued that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded.
First, it was impossible to enforce the judgment because it had been
quashed on supervisory review. Second, the quashing of the judgment
was justified, because the judgment had misinterpreted the law
on the savings scheme and awarded more than was due. Third, the
applicant did receive a partial reimbursement of the car’s
price.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention includes the “right
to a court” (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment
of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 36). To
honour this right, the State must obey a binding judgment (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III) and avoid
quashing it, save for correcting a miscarriage of justice or judicial
error (Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51–58,
ECHR 2003 IX). Besides, an enforceable judgment constitutes a
“possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
- The
Court considers that in the case at hand the State has breached the
applicant’s “right to a court” and prevented him
from peacefully enjoying his possessions. First, the State avoided
paying the judgment debt for one year and five months. Then the State
quashed the judgment because it had been based on an alleged
misinterpretation of law, which did not fall within the exceptional
circumstances referred to above (see Kot v. Russia, no.
20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
- There
have accordingly been violations of Article 6 of the Convention and
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had
no effective domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of the
judgment and its subsequent quashing. Article 13 reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the ones examined above
and therefore must also be declared admissible.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint. The Government made no
observations in reply.
- As
the Government have not rebutted the applicant’s allegation,
the Court finds that the applicant had no effective domestic
remedy (see Lositskiy v. Russia, no. 24395/02, §§ 30,
14 December 2006).
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there have been violations of Article
6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 June 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
