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 KOROLEV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 25550/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 April
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 Korolev v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni,
judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 25550/05) 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 Vladimir Petrovich
Korolev (“the applicant”), on 9 September 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
4 April 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 1954 and lives in the town of Orenburg.
- In
2000 the applicant sued the communication department of the Ural
Military Circuit of the Ministry of Defence for social benefits
provided to former military officers by law.
- On
6 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg
accepted the applicant's action in part and awarded him 3,135.20
Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 130 euros). The judgment was not
appealed against and became final.
- On
19 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court issued the applicant
with a writ of execution. It also sent a copy of the writ to the
defendant.
- In
February 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the District
Court because the defendant did not have funds to enforce the
judgment.
- On
4 April 2001 a bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings.
- On
19 November 2003 the applicant was paid RUR 3,135.20.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained that the judgment 6 December 2000 was not
enforced in good time. The Court considers that this complaint falls
to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002 III). 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 claimed that the judgment of 6 December
2000 had not been enforced for a long time because the debtor, a
State body, had not had funds.
- The
applicant maintained his complaints.
- The
Court observes that on 6 December 2000 the applicant obtained a
judgment in his favour by which he was to be paid a certain sum of
money by the communication department of the Ural Military Circuit of
the Ministry of Defence, a State body. The judgment was not appealed
against and became final and enforceable. It was fully enforced on 19
November 2003 when the sum was credited to the applicant's account.
Thus, the judgment of 6 December 2000 remained unenforced for
approximately two years and eleven months.
- 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, § 19 et seq., ECHR 2002 III;
Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; Gerasimova v. Russia,
no. 24669/02, § 17 et seq., 13 October 2005).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
The Court notes that the judgment was not enforced because the debtor
did not have financial recourses. However, the Court reiterates that
it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds as an
excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Plotnikovy v.
Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005). The Court
finds that by failing for years to comply with the enforceable
judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities impaired
the essence of his right to a court and prevented him from receiving
the money he had legitimately 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 RUR 3,135.20 in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing the judgment award made in his favour on 6 December
2000. He further claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the judgment award had already been paid to
the applicant and thus, his claims in respect of pecuniary damage
should be dismissed. They further submitted that the applicant's
claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage were excessive and
unreasonable. In any event, the finding of a violation will
constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
- As
regards the claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court observes
that the judgment award was paid to the applicant in full in November
2003; it therefore rejects this claim.
- On
the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant must have
suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State
authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. The Court
takes into account the relevant aspects, such as the length of the
enforcement proceedings and the nature of the domestic award, and
making its assessment on an equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR
2,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed RUR 212 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court.
- The
Government did not comment.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his 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 that the
sum claimed should be awarded in full, 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
- 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 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:
(i) EUR 2,300 (two thousand and three hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of the settlement;
(ii) RUR 212 (two hundred and twelve Russian roubles) in respect of
costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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 12 April 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Loukis Loucaides
Registrar President
