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 VOLOKITIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 374/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9
November 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 Volokitin 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 F. Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and
Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 19 October 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 374/03) 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, Mr Konstantin Vladimirovich
Volokitin (“the applicant”), on 1 November 2002.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
29 June 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Novoaltaysk in the Altay
Region. He is a practising lawyer.
- The
applicant is the legal owner of State commodity bonds Harvest-90
(чеки
«Урожай-90»)
having a total nominal value of 64,000 Russian roubles (“RUR”).
These bonds were a special money substitute issued by the USSR
Government in 1990 in order to finance the purchase of the harvest
for further distribution among the population. In additional to a
certain nominal value, the bonds gave their bearers an opportunity to
purchase goods that had then been in short supply.
- In
2001 the applicant brought a civil action against the Russian
Government and Ministry of Finance, seeking to recover the value of
his bonds. He argued that in 1991, the bearer of bonds worth 16,000
Russian roubles could exchange them for a Russian-made Vaz
passenger car.
- On
6 September 2001 the Novoaltaysk Town Court of the Altay Region
granted the applicant's claim and awarded him RUR 455,080
(approximately 17,400 euros).
- On
9 January 2002 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment on
appeal. It held as follows:
“The [first-instance] court correctly found that,
once the State has recognised the obligations [arising from the
commodity bonds], they should be discharged in good faith, pursuant
to Article 309 of the Civil Code. The court correctly noted that the
failure to adopt a federal law governing the procedure for redemption
of the State's obligations did not prevent the plaintiff from seeking
judicial protection of his legitimate interests. By virtue of Article
310 of the Civil Code, unilateral repudiation of an obligation or
unilateral modification of its terms are not permissible, unless the
law provides otherwise. At present there is no federal law on
unilateral modification of the terms of the obligation. Accordingly,
the court correctly applies the norms of the Civil Code.
Pursuant to Article 314 of the Civil Code, if an
obligation is to be discharged on a specific day or within a specific
period of time, it may be discharged at any moment within that
period. The plaintiff's bonds provided for his right to receive four
Vaz cars by 1 October 1991. However, this obligation has not
been discharged to date. In this connection the court correctly
concluded that the plaintiff has the right to pecuniary compensation
equivalent to the value of four Vaz cars at the day of the
judgment...”
- On
22 June 2002 the applicant submitted a writ of execution and his bank
details to the Ministry of Finance for enforcement.
- By
letter of 8 October 2002, a deputy Minister of Finance acknowledged
receipt of the documents and informed him that the courts had erred
in granting his claim and that the Altay Regional Treasury would
submit an application for institution of supervisory-review
proceedings against the judgments. It appears that that application
was rejected by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on an
unspecified date.
- On
17 August 2005 the Ministry of Finance applied for a stay of
execution of the judgment on the ground that the 2005 Federal Budget
Act had suspended payments under the Harvest-90 bonds until 31
December 2005.
- On
6 September 2005 the Novoaltaysk Town Court refused the Ministry's
application. It pointed out that judicial decisions were binding on
all State authorities and that the suspension of payments from the
federal budget was not a ground for staying enforcement of an
enforceable judgment. On 19 October 2005 the Altay Regional Court
upheld that decision on appeal.
- The
judgment of 6 September 2001, as upheld on appeal on 9 January
2002, has not yet been enforced.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the
judgment of 6 September 2001, as upheld on appeal on 9 January 2002,
violated his right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention and
his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under 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 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
applicant maintained his complaints.
- The
Government acknowledged that the prolonged failure to enforce the
judgment in the applicant's favour violated his right to a fair
hearing and to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
- The
Court observes that on 9 January 2002 the applicant obtained an
enforceable judgment by which the federal treasury was to pay him a
substantial amount. The judgment has not been enforced to date.
- 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, for example, 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 materials 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. It finds, and
that is not disputed by the Government, 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 455,080 Russian roubles (RUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage and RUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's claims should be rejected
because he had not been an agricultural worker himself and had
purchased the Harvest-90 bonds on the market.
- The Court notes that the State's outstanding
obligation to enforce the judgment in the
applicant's favour is not in dispute. Accordingly, the applicant is
still entitled to recover the principal amount in the domestic
proceedings. The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of
redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is to ensure that the
applicant as far as possible is put in the position he would have
been had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see
Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 26 October
1984, Series A no. 85, § 12, and, mutatis
mutandis, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99,
§ 27, 23 October 2003). The Court finds that in the present
case this principle applies as well, having regard to the violations
found (see Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33,
24 February 2005). It therefore considers that the Government
shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made
by the domestic courts in the applicant's favour.
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce a judgment in his favour. However, the particular
amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant 2,700 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no
call to make an award 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 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 in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the
enforcement of the award made by the domestic court, and in addition
pay the applicant EUR 2,700 (two thousand seven hundred euros) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles
at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement, plus any tax
that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 9 November 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
