[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF GALINA KUZNETSOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 3006/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 July 2010
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 Galina Kuznetsova 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 6 July 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 3006/03) 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 Galina Lukyanovna
Kuznetsova (“the applicant”), on 16 December 2002.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
12 October 2005 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 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zarubino in the Primorye
Region.
A. Tort action and index-linking of the award
- On
12 February 2001 the Khasanskiy District Court of the Primorye Region
(the District Court) partly granted the applicant’s tort action
against a municipal housing maintenance company of the Khasanskiy
District and awarded her 48,461.01 Russian roubles (RUB) as
compensation for pecuniary damage and RUB 1,200 as compensation for
non-pecuniary damage. The district court also ordered that the
housing authority should repair the roof, the heating system and the
water-pipes in the applicant’s house.
- On
28 March 2001 the Primorye Regional Court amended the judgment on
appeal, increased the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage by
RUB 8,994.12 and upheld the remainder of the judgment.
- On
16 January 2002 the respondent company was declared insolvent and the
insolvency procedure started.
- On
26 May 2003 the District Court index-linked the award of 12 February
2001 and held that the respondent company was to pay the applicant
RUB 13,441.20. The judgment became final ten days later.
- By
letter of 18 May 2005 an insolvency manager of the housing
maintenance company had notified the applicant that the respondent
company had been declared insolvent and that the
debtor was to be released from claims that were unsatisfied in the
insolvency proceedings, since there was a lack of assets.
Accordingly, the applicant’s claims could not be satisfied. The
case materials do not contain further information on the insolvency
proceedings.
- The
judgments of 12 February 2001 and 26 May 2003 have not been enforced
to date.
B. Proceedings against the bailiffs
- On
an unspecified date the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance and
the Primorye Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice for
compensation for damage caused by the bailiffs’ failure to
enforce the judgment of 12 February 2001.
- On
4 February 2003 the District Court partly granted her action. The
court found that the bailiff had failed to send the enforcement
documents to the applicant in time and was inactive in obtaining the
execution of the judgment. The court awarded the applicant RUB 5,000
against the local department of the Ministry of Justice as
compensation for non-pecuniary damage and RUB 4,678.42 as
compensation for expenses related to the enforcement and court
proceedings against the regional department of the Ministry of
Justice. The district court also held that the respondents were not
under an obligation to pay the applicant RUB 40,642.50 because the
bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the municipal company were
pending and the applicant had been included in
the register of the housing maintenance company
creditors’ claims. On 19 March 2003 the Primorye
Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
- On
12 August 2003 RUB 9,678 of the court award had been paid to the
applicant by the respondent authority.
- According
to the Government, at some point the bailiff was dismissed on account
of her failure to ensure timely enforcement of the judgments in the
applicant’s favour. On 12 February 2004 the District Court held
that the bailiff should repay RUB 7,078 of damages to the
authorities.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
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 of
12 February 2001 and 4 and 26 February 2003. 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
- As regards the judgment of 4 February 2003, the Court
notes that it has been executed in full on 12 August 2003, that is
within less than five months from 19 March 2003, the date of its
entry into force. Such delay cannot be said to be excessive from the
Convention standpoint. It follows that this
part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and that it must be rejected
pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
- As
regards the judgments of 12 February 2001 and 26 February 2003, 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 admitted that the authorities’ failure to assist the
applicant in execution of the domestic awards resulted in delayed
enforcement of the judgments in the applicant’s favour and
therefore had breached her Convention rights.
- In
the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds no reason to
hold otherwise. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of non enforcement of the judgments dated 12 February 2001 and
26 February 2003.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the
Convention that she had not been provided with legal assistance in
the course of the proceedings concerning compensation for damages and
that the court proceedings to which she had been a party had been
unfair.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the
matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found
that they did 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 in
accordance with 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 57,577 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of
pecuniary damage. Of this sum, RUB 50,577 represented the unpaid
amount awarded by the judgment of 12 February 2001 and RUB 7,000 an
estimate cost of repair of the electrical wiring in the applicant’s
flat. She submitted that there was a direct link between the
respondent municipal company’s failure to repair her flat
contrary to the domestic judgment and the above maintenance expenses.
She furnished an estimate of the repair costs made by a local
electricity provider. The latter certified that it would repair the
flat at the applicant’s expense. The applicant further claimed
1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government invited the Court to reject the claim for pecuniary
damages, because there was no link between the alleged violation and
the amounts claimed. They submitted, without further details, that
the respondent in the domestic proceedings was a municipal company, a
separate legal entity, and the State was not bound by its debts. They
further submitted that the amount of EUR 900 would be sufficient to
compensate the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a
result of the above violations.
- As
regards the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court notes that the
judgment of 12 February 2001 remains unenforced. It further notes
that the Government explicitly acknowledged the authorities’
responsibility for the failure to execute the domestic judicial
decision in time. Therefore, the Court finds that the Government that
should pay the applicant the equivalent in euros of the unpaid
judgment debt in the amount claimed by the applicant. Furthermore, it
is a common ground between the parties the judgment in the part
ordering the repair of the flat had not been executed by the
respondent company either. Turning to the applicant’s claim in
this respect, the Court notes a causal link between the claim
submitted and the violation found. Given
that the applicant substantiated her claim of RUB 7,000 with a
detailed estimate by the domestic electricity provider and
that the Government had not challenged the method of calculation used
by the applicant, the Court also grants her claim in this part. In
sum, the Court considers it appropriate to allow the applicant’s
claims in respect of pecuniary damage in full and awards her EUR
1,448, plus any tax that may be chargeable, under this head.
-
The Court further awards the applicant EUR 1,400 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and
rejects the remainder of the claim under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed RUB 443.63 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. She produced the postal receipts for mailing
correspondence to the Court. The Government submitted that the
applicant’s costs and expenses related to the domestic
proceedings concerning the non enforcement complaint had been
compensated to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of 4 February
2003, and there was no reason to grant the amount claimed twice.
- 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. Turning to the present application, the
Court notes that the sum claimed under this head represented the
applicant’s expenses related to her correspondence with the
Court, which had not been covered by the domestic award referred to
by the Government. Regard being had to the documents in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court allows the applicant’s
claim and awards her EUR 13 in respect of costs and expenses, plus
any tax that may be chargeable.
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
non-enforcement of the judgments of 12 February 2001 and 26 February
2003 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of
non-enforcement of the judgments of 12 February 2001 and 26 February
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, the following
amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)
EUR 1,448 (one thousand four hundred and forty-eight euros) in
respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 1,400 (one thousand four hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii)
EUR 13 (thirteen euros) 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 29 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
