[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF DOROZHKO
v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 5761/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 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 Dorozhko
v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina Vajić,
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 5 June 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 5761/03) 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 a Russian national, Mrs Lyubov Grigoryevna
Dorozhko (“the applicant”), on 29 January 2003.
- 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
5 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
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Voronezh.
- On
30 October 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh
awarded the applicant 10,300 Russian roubles (“RUB”) in
damages against the Ministry of Defence. This judgment became binding
on 10 November 2001 and was enforced on 12 August 2003. To compensate
for the delay, on 11 November 2003 the court upgraded the debt
in line with the cost of living and awarded a further RUB 2,874.
- On
8 November 2001 the Central District Court of Voronezh awarded the
applicant damages against the police. This judgment became binding on
19 February 2002 and was enforced on 15 November 2005.
- As
these judgments had not been enforced promptly, the applicant
complained to a court. On 12 September 2002 the Kominternovskiy
District Court urged the Ministry of Finance to enforce the
judgments. On 30 September 2002 the court awarded the applicant
RUB 15 of legal costs. This decision became binding but was not
enforced.
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 that the lengthy non-enforcement of the
judgments violated Article 6 § 1 of 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 admitted that the long non-enforcement of the judgments of
30 October and 8 November 2001 had violated the Convention. However,
the authorities had acknowledged the excessive delay and had paid
compensation as regards the judgment of 30 October 2001.
- The
applicant maintained her complaint. The compensation had been too
small and had not concerned all the judgments. The decision of
30 September 2002 remained unenforced.
- The
Court notes, with regard to the judgment of 30 October 2001, that on
11 November 2003 the Kominternovskiy District Court upgraded the
judgment debt in line with the cost of living. Nevertheless, this
upgrade was insufficient to deprive the applicant of her status as a
victim, because it compensated only her inationary losses and
not possible damage, pecuniary or non-pecuniary.
13. 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
Government have acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the
judgments of 30 October 2001 and 8 November 2001, and have provided
no explanation as to the decision of 30 September 2002.
- The
Court finds, accordingly, that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No.
1.
II. APPLICATION
OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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 9.755,68 in respect of pecuniary damage and
5,000 euros (“EUR”) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that these claims were excessive and unjustified.
- As
to pecuniary damage,
the Court reiterates that the violation found is best redressed by
putting the applicant in the position she would have been if the
Convention had been respected. The Government shall therefore secure,
by appropriate means, the enforcement of the domestic courts’
outstanding award (see,
with further references, Poznakhirina
v. Russia,
no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005).
- As
to non-pecuniary damage, the Court accepts that the non-enforcement
of the judgments must have distressed the applicant. On an equitable
basis, the Court awards EUR 2,100 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
21. The
applicant also claimed RUB 2,366.62 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
- The
Government found this claim justified.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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 71 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
1. Declares
the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
shall secure, by appropriate means, the
enforcement of the award made by the domestic court,
and in addition pay the following amounts, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,100 (two thousand one hundred euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 71
(seventy-one euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 26 June 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3
of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President
