BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KRIVONOS v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 37641/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 December
2007
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 Krivonos v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 37641/04) 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, Ms Anna Pavlovna Krivonos
(“the applicant”), on 31 August 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms S. Poznakhirina, an NGO expert
practising in Novovoronezh. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
30 May 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
applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novovoronezh in the Voronezh
Region.
- In
2003 and 2004 the applicant sued the local Social Security Committee
for unpaid allowances and commodity benefits.
- By
judgment of 1 July 2003, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh
Region awarded her 19,315.50 Russian roubles (RUB) for the period
from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. On 2 September 2003 the judgment
became final. The applicant received the monies on 8 June 2005.
- By
judgment of 27 February 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant
RUB 16,765.50 for the period between 1 July and 31 December 2003. On
9 March 2004 the judgment entered into force. The applicant
received the monies on 3 August 2005.
- On
15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57.
It appears that the judgment was not enforced.
- On
7 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.54 for
the period from 1 January to 31 March 2004 and increased her
monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.85 from 1 April 2004 with subsequent
indexation. On 17 May 2004 the judgment entered into force. The
applicant received the lump sum on 11 November 2005.
- On
4 June 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,772.30 in
arrears, increased her monthly commodity benefits to RUB 679.78
from 1 April 2004 and ordered the Social Security Committee to adjust
the applicant's annual disability allowance starting from 2005 in
line with inflation. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.
- On
6 October 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 12,659.40
for the period from 1 April to 31 July 2004. On 18 October 2004
the judgment entered into force. The applicant received the monies on
11 November 2005.
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 that the judgments of 1 July 2003,
27 February, 15 March, 7 May, 4 June and 6 October 2004 had not
been enforced in good time. The relevant parts of these provisions
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 submitted that the judgments of 1 July 2003, 27 February,
7 May and 6 October 2004 had been enforced; the judgments of 15 March
and 4 June 2004 had not been enforced. Subsequently, they submitted,
apparently, as regards the judgment of 4 June 2004, that the
applicant had received her monthly and annual allowances for the
period up to 1 July 2006.
- The
applicant submitted that the judgments of 15 March and 4 June 2004
had not been properly enforced.
- The
Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the
judgments of 1 July 2003, 27 February, 7 May and 6 October 2004
had been enforced in full between June and November 2005. Thus, the
delays in their enforcement varied from nearly thirteen to twenty-one
months.
- Next,
the Court notes that the Government submitted no proof that the
judgments of 15 March and 4 June 2004 had been enforced in full.
Having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court concludes
that those judgments remain without enforcement.
- 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 Burdov v.
Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002 III;
Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq.,
18 November 2004; and Gerasimova v.
Russia, no. 24669/02, § 17 et
seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by
failing, for relatively long periods of time, to comply with the
enforceable judgments in the applicant's favour the domestic
authorities impaired the essence of her right to a court and
prevented her from receiving the money she could reasonably have
expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 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
applicant claimed 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 703 in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the
amounts outstanding under the judgments of 15 March and 4 June 2004.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's pecuniary claims were
unsubstantiated. They considered that her claim in respect of
non-pecuniary damage was excessive and unreasonable.
- As
to the pecuniary claim, the Court considers that the Government shall
secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the domestic
awards which remain without enforcement (see paragraph 17 above).
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the authorities' failure to
enforce in good time the judgments in her favour. Taking into account
the length of the enforcement proceedings, the number of the awards
and their nature, and making its assessment on an equitable basis,
the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,100 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any claims under this head and the Court
accordingly makes no award in respect of costs and expenses.
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, 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 awards made by the domestic court;
(b) 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, EUR 3,100
(three thousand one hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
on the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
that amount;
(c) 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 6 December 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
