[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF
GARAGULYA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 12157/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
May 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 Garagulya 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 29 April 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 12157/06) 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 Grigoriy Vasilyevich
Garagulya (“the applicant”), on 19 February 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practising in
Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian
Federation at the Court.
- The
applicant complained of the quashing on supervisory review of a
binding and enforceable judgment delivered in his favour in 2002.
- On
30 March 2009 the President of the First Section decided to
communicate the case to the respondent 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 1925 and lives in Voronezh.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
- The
applicant sued the local branch of the Pension Fund claiming that his
monthly pension had been calculated in a wrong manner.
- On
10 September 2002 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted
his claims and ordered that the pension due to the applicant be
recalculated and increased.
- On
19 December 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the
respondent's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment, which
became final on the same day.
- On
23 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia granted the respondent's
application for supervisory review and transferred the case for a
fresh examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Voronezh
Regional Court.
- On
1 February 2006 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court quashed
the judgments of 10 September and 19 December 2002 and delivered a
new judgment dismissing the applicant's claims in full.
- As
from February 2006, the amount of the applicant's monthly pension has
been decreased by 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB).
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law governing the supervisory-review procedure at
the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of
Sobelin and Others v. Russia (nos. 30672/03 et
al., §§ 33-42, 3 May 2007).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 that the final judgment of 19 December 2002 was
quashed by way of supervisory review. In so far as relevant, these
provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public 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 considers 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
1. Arguments by the parties
- The
Government argued that the supervisory-review proceedings resulting
in the quashing of the judgments at issue were lawful: they were
initiated by the respondent within the time-limits provided for by
domestic law. The Government submitted that the Presidium of the
Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgments of 10 September and 19
December 2002 with a view to correcting the “fundamental
defect” committed by the lower courts, in particular their
misapplication of relevant domestic law. The Government lay special
emphasis on the fact that, by contrast with the Ryabykh case
(see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 54,
ECHR 2003 IX), the supervisory-review proceedings had been
initiated by a party to the case, the local branch of the Pension
Fund. Finally, the Government maintained that the judgments had been
quashed in the applicant's favour as the Presidium's decision
entitled him to a higher pension. They concluded that there had been
no violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
applicant replied that the judgments of 10 September and 19 December
2002 had been quashed more than three years after becoming binding.
He contested the Presidium's finding of the “fundamental
defect” allegedly committed by the lower courts in the original
judgments. The applicant considered that their quashing had
irremediably impaired the principle of legal certainty and violated
his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as the amount of his
retirement pension had been reduced by three thereafter.
2. The Court's assessment
- The Court reiterates that legal certainty, which is
one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law, presupposes
respect for the principle of res judicata, that is the
principle of the finality of judgments. A departure from that
principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a
substantial and compelling character, such as correction of
fundamental defects or miscarriage of justice (see Brumărescu
v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR
1999 VII; Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51-52).
- The
Court further recalls that it has already found numerous violations
of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and
enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of
Civil Procedure as in force at the material time. Some of these
violations were found in similar and, on certain occasions, virtually
identical circumstances involving retired servicemen (see Sergey
Petrov v. Russia, no. 1861/05, 10 May 2007; Parolov v. Russia,
no. 44543/04, 14 June 2007 and Kulkov and Others, nos.
25114/03, 11512/03, 9794/05, 37403/05, 13110/06, 19469/06, 42608/06,
44928/06, 44972/06 and 45022/06, 8 January 2009). In those cases
the Court found that the quashing of final judgments in the
applicants' favour was not justified by circumstances of compelling
and exceptional character. The Court finds no reason to come to a
different conclusion in the present case.
- The arguments submitted by the Government in the
present case were addressed in detail and dismissed in previous
similar cases. Misapplication of material law by the lower courts
does not in itself justify the quashing of binding and enforceable
judgments on supervisory review, even if the latter was exercised
within the one-year time-limit set in domestic law (Kot v. Russia,
no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). Nor can the Court discern
any fundamental defect in the present case arising from the specific
grounds put forward by the Government. In the present case, like in
all others, the supervisory review was prompted by higher courts'
disagreement about the applicant's entitlement to social benefits,
which was determined in fair adversarial proceedings at the
fist-instance and further confirmed on appeal (compare Protsenko
v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 30-34, 31 July 2008,
and Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4
December 2008). Finally, while the aim of uniform application of
domestic law may be achieved through various legislative and
adjudicative means, it cannot justify disregard for the applicant's
legitimate reliance on res judicata (see Kulkov and Others,
cited above, § 27).
- The
Court accordingly concludes that the quashing of the binding and
enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour amounts to a breach of
the principle of legal certainty in violation of Article 6 of the
Convention.
- The Court further reiterates that the binding and
enforceable judgments created an established right to payment in the
applicant's favour, which is considered as “possession”
within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see
Vasilopoulou v. Greece, no. 47541/99, § 22,
21 March 2002). The quashing of the judgments in breach of
the principle of legal certainty frustrated the applicant's reliance
on the binding judicial decisions and deprived him of an opportunity
to receive the judicial awards he had legitimately expected to
receive (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, §
35, 7 June 2007). There has accordingly been also a violation of that
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 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage. He did not claim pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered that the applicant's claim for non pecuniary
damage was unsubstantiated.
- The
Court finds that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage as a
result of the violations found which cannot be compensated by the
mere finding of a violation. Having regard to the circumstances of
the case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required
by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards to the
applicant a sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, claimed EUR 2,000 for
legal costs. He attached the lawyer's bill in support of his claim.
- The
Government considered the claims as unsubstantiated as the applicant
provided no proof of payment.
- 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
decides to award to the applicant the sum of EUR 1,000, plus any
tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
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
complaint concerning the quashing of the binding and enforceable
judgments in the supervisory-review proceedings admissible;
Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of the
judgments in the applicant's favour by way of supervisory review;
- 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, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement:
i. EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage plus
any tax that may be chargeable;
ii. EUR
1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 May 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
