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 £1, 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 SHAPOVALOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 2047/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 October 2006
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 Shapovalova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis,
President,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S.
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application (no. 2047/03)
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, Ms
Liubov Gennadyevna Shapovalova (“the applicant”), on 27
November 2002.
- The applicant was represented by Mr I. Teliatyev, a
lawyer practising in Arkhangelsk. 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 30 September 2005 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 1961 and lives in the town of
Arkhangelsk in the Arkhangelsk Region.
A. Proceedings concerning child support benefits
- The applicant sued the Financial Division of the
Arkhangelsk Regional administration and the social security services
of the Arkhangelsk Region for payment of child support benefits,
interest thereon and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
- On 5 January 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of
Arkhangelsk adjourned the examination of the action and requested the
applicant to submit evidence and to clarify her claims. This decision
was quashed on appeal by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 5 March
2001. The case was remitted for an examination on the merits.
- On 5 April 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court
awarded the applicant 490.91 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 19
euros) in arrears in respect of child support benefits and dismissed
the remainder of the claims. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 28
May 2001 and became final.
- Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the
judgment was not enforced because the Arkhangelsk Regional
administration lacked necessary funds.
- On 13 May 2003 the applicant received the sum in full.
B. Proceedings against bailiffs
- On 2 April 2002 the applicant sued the Arkhangelsk
Regional bailiffs' office and the Ministry of Justice for
compensation for damage caused by non-enforcement of the judgment of
5 April 2001, as upheld on appeal on 28 May 2001.
- On 9 April 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court
disallowed the action because it should have been lodged with a court
in Moscow. The decision was quashed on appeal on 27 May 2002 and the
matter was remitted for an examination on its merits.
- On 20 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court
dismissed the applicant's action because the Arkhangelsk Regional
administration lacked funds for the enforcement of the judgment
concerned and the bailiffs' office was not at fault for
non-enforcement. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 22 July 2002.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF PROTRACTED NON-ENFORCEMENT
OF THE JUDGMENT OF 5 APRIL 2001
- The applicant complained that the judgment 5 April
2001, as upheld on appeal on 28 May 2001, had not been 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 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, without providing further
explanations, stated that the judgment of 5 April 2001 was enforced
in May 2003.
- The applicant argued that the judgment remained
unenforced because the money had been paid by another State authority
and not by the Regional Administration.
- The Court observes that on 5 April 2001 the applicant
obtained a judgment in her favour by which she was to receive a
certain sum of money from the Arkhangelsk Regional Administration.
The judgment became final and enforceable on 28 May 2001. On 13 May
2003 the applicant was paid RUR 490.01, as provided by the judgment
of 5 April 2001.
- The Court notes the applicant's argument that the
judgment of 5 April 2001, as upheld on appeal on 28 May 2001,
remains unenforced because the money were paid by another State
agency and not by the Regional Administration. In this respect, the
Court observes that the applicant did not indicate any reason why on
13 May 2003 a State body paid her the same sum as provided by the
judgment award. Thus, the Court is not convinced by the applicant's
argument and considers that the sum was paid to her with the view to
enforce the judgment of 5 April 2001. Therefore, the judgment of
5 April 2001, as upheld on appeal on 28 May 2001, remained unenforced
until 13 May 2003, that is for approximately two years.
- 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 justifying the delay in enforcement of the
judgment of 5 April 2001. The Court finds that by failing for almost
two years to comply with the enforceable judgment 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 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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The applicant further complained under Articles 6 of
the Convention that her right of access to court had been violated
when the courts had refused to accept her actions on 5 January 2001
and 9 April 2002 and that the courts had incorrectly applied domestic
law and assessed the facts of the case when determined her action
against the bailiffs. However, having regard to all the materials in
its possession, the Court finds that these complaints do 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 as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to 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 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government contested the claim, noting that it was
unreasonable and excessive.
- The Court does not exclude that the applicant might
have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State
authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. However,
having regard to the nature of the breach in this case and making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considers that the
finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant
(cf. Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 35, 24
February 2005).
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant did not make any
claims for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts
and before the Court.
- Accordingly, the Court does not award anything under
this head.
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 delay in
enforcement of the judgment of 5 April 2001, as upheld on appeal on
28 May 2001, 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;
- Holds that the finding of a violation
constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any
non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
