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 SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 3519/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 July 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 Sidorenko 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 D. Spielmann, judges,
and
Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 5 July 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 3519/05) 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 Mikhail Mikhaylovich
Sidorenko (“the applicant”), on 18 December 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
24 March 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Udachnyy, a town in the Sakha
(Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.
- The
applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of
the Russian Federation, seeking to recover the monetary value of
state promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car.
- On
2 April 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Republic of Sakha
(Yakutiya) found for the applicant and awarded him 138,967 Russian
roubles.
- By
a decision of 14 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha
(Yakutiya) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld
the judgment. On the same date the judgment of 2 April 2003 acquired
legal force but it has never been enforced.
- On
16 July 2004 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha
(Yakutiya) referred the case to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of
the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya), upon the defendant's application
for supervisory review.
- On
12 August 2004 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 2 April 2003, as
upheld by the decision of 14 May 2003, and dismissed the applicant's
claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts
had failed to take into account the provisions of the Federal Law on
State Promissory notes of 1 June 1995, as amended on 2 June
2000, which extended the period of redemption of the state promissory
notes until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium's assessment,
that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law
warranting a re-examination of the case.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE
JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOUR
- The
applicant complained about the quashing, by way of supervisory
review, of the judgment of 2 April 2003. He referred to Article 6 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 ... 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 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. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
- The
Government submitted that on 12 August 2004 the Presidium of the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) acted in accordance
with domestic law and procedure. It quashed the judgment of 2 April
2003, as upheld by the decision of 14 May 2003, because the lower
courts had made an error in the application of substantive law. In
particular, they had failed to take into account the provisions of
the Federal Law on State Promissory notes of 1 June 1995 which
extended the period of redemption of the state promissory notes until
31 December 2004. They concluded that there had been no violation of
the principle of legal certainty.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal
as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be
interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which
declares, in its relevant part, the rule of law to be part of the
common heritage of the Contracting States. One of the fundamental
aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which
requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally
determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question
(see Brumărescu v. Romania, judgment of 28 October 1999,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-VII, § 61).
- This
principle underlines that no party is entitled to seek a review of a
final and binding judgment merely for the purpose of obtaining a
rehearing and a fresh determination of the case. Higher courts' power
of review should be exercised to correct judicial errors and
miscarriages of justice, but not to carry out a fresh examination.
The review should not be treated as an appeal in disguise, and the
mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a
ground for re-examination. A departure from that principle is
justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial
and compelling character (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh
v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X; and
Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, §
25, 18 November 2004).
16. The Court reiterates that Article 6
§ 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to
his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal.
In this way it embodies the “right to a court”, of which
the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings
before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect. However, that
right would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal
system allowed a final and binding judicial decision to be quashed by
a higher court on an application made by a State official whose power
to lodge such an application is not subject to any time-limit, with
the result that the judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely
(see Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51-56).
- The
Court observes that on 2 April 2003 the Mirniskiy District Court of
the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) granted the applicant's action
against the Ministry of Finance and awarded him a sum of money. The
judgment was upheld on appeal on 14 May 2003 and acquired legal force
on the same date. On 12 August 2004 the judgment was quashed by way
of supervisory review on the ground that the lower courts had
erroneously applied substantive law.
- The
Court reiterates that it has found a violation of an applicant's
“right to a court” guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention in many Russian cases in which a judicial decision
that had become final and binding, was subsequently quashed by a
higher court on an application by a State official or a party to the
proceedings, especially when a particularly long period of time, as
in the present case, lapsed from the date the judgment in the
applicant's favour had become binding to the date the
supervisory-review proceedings were instituted (see Ryabykh,
cited above, §§ 51-58;
Volkova v. Russia, no. 48758/99, §§
34-37, 5 April 2005; Roseltrans v. Russia, no.
60974/00, §§ 27-28, 21 July 2005;
Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, §§
46-50, 21 September 2006; and Nelyubin v. Russia, no.
14502/04, §§ 28-30, 2 November 2006). Furthermore, in the
case of Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January
2007) the Court found as follows:
“It is unavoidable that in civil proceedings the
parties would have conflicting views on application of the
substantive law. The courts are called upon to examine their
arguments in a fair and adversarial manner and make their assessment
of the claim. The Court observes that before an application for
supervisory review was lodged, the merits of the applicant's claim
had been examined... by the first-instance and appeal courts. It has
not been claimed that the courts acted outside their competences or
that there was a fundamental defect in the proceedings before them.
The fact that the Presidium disagreed with the assessment made by the
first-instance and appeal courts was not, in itself, an exceptional
circumstance warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable
judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim.”
- Having examined the materials submitted to it, the
Court observes that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in
the present case. Accordingly, the Court finds that by quashing the
judgment of 2 April 2003, by way of supervisory review, the Presidium
of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) infringed
the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's “right to
a court” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. There has
accordingly been a violation of that Article.
2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
- The
Government submitted that the quashing of the judgment of 2 April
2003 had not amounted to an interference with the applicant's rights
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding
and enforceable judgment furnishes the judgment beneficiary with a
“legitimate expectation” that the debt would be paid and
constitutes the beneficiary's “possessions” within the
meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing of such a
judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful
enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Brumărescu,
cited above, § 74; and Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00,
§ 69, 6 October 2005).
- The
Court observes that the applicant obtained a binding and enforceable
judgment in his favour, by the terms of which the Ministry of Finance
was to pay him a substantial amount of money. He was prevented from
receiving the award through no fault of his own. The quashing of the
enforceable judgment frustrated the applicant's reliance on a binding
judicial decision and deprived him of an opportunity to receive the
money he had legitimately expected to receive. In these
circumstances, even assuming that the interference was lawful and
pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the quashing of
the enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour by way of
supervisory review placed an excessive burden on the applicant and
was incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1. There has
therefore been a violation of that Article.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT OF 2 APRIL 2003
- The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of
the judgment of 2 April 2003, as upheld on 14 May 2003. He relied on
Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The
relevant parts of these provisions are cited above.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the 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 submitted that the judgment of 2 April 2003 had not been
enforced because it had been quashed by the Presidium of the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) on 12 August 2004. The
Presidium issued a new decision in the applicant's case by which
rejected his claims in full.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court observes that on 2 April 2003 the applicant obtained a judgment
by which the Ministry of Finance was to pay him a substantial amount
of money. On 14 May 2003 the judgment was upheld on appeal and became
legally binding and enforceable. From that moment, it was incumbent
on the debtor, a state body, to comply with it. On 12 August 2004 the
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya)
quashed the judgment of 2 April 2003.
- It
follows that at least from 14 May 2003 to 12 August 2004 the judgment
of 2 April 2003 was enforceable and it was incumbent on the State to
abide by its terms (cf. Velskaya v. Russia, no. 21769/03,
§ 18, 5 October 2006).
- The
Government cited the initiation of the supervisory review proceedings
in respect of the judgment of 2 April 2003 as the sole reason for its
non-enforcement. In this respect, the Court reiterates that it has
recently addressed and dismissed the same argument by the Government
in the case of Sukhobokov v. Russia (no. 75470/01, 13 April
2006). In particular, the Court held that “the quashing of the
judgment, which did not respect the principle of legal certainty and
the applicant's “right to a court”, cannot be accepted as
a reason to justify the non-enforcement of the judgment” (see
Sukhobokov, cited above, § 26, and Velskaya v. Russia,
cited above, § 19).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it and taking into account its
findings in paragraphs 19 and 23 above,
the Court notes that the Government did not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different
conclusion in the present case. Nor did they advance any other
justification for the failure to enforce the judgment of 2 April
2003. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III; and,
more recently, Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, 29
September 2005, Denisov v. Russia, no. 21823/03, 25
January 2007), the Court finds that by failing for a substantial
period to comply with the judgment in the applicant's favour, the
domestic authorities violated his right to a court and prevented him
from receiving the money he was entitled to receive.
- The
Court finds accordingly that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the
non-enforcement of the judgment of 2 April 2003.
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.”
- The
Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim
for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing
together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, “failing
which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part”.
- In
the instant case, on 20 July 2006 the applicant was invited to submit
his claims for just satisfaction. He failed to submit any such claims
within the required time-limit.
- In
these circumstances, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the
Convention.
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 on account of the
quashing of the judgment of 2 April 2003;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the
non-enforcement of the judgment of 2 April 2003;
- Decides to make no award under Article 41.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
