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 SAIDOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 6558/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 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 Saidov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mr A. Kovler,
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 14 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 6558/06) 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 Timur Turkoyevich Saidov
(“the applicant”), on 23 January 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Timishev, a lawyer practising in
the town of Nalchik. 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 1972 and lives in the town of Grozniy in the
Chechen Republic. He works as a driver in a technical service of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chechen Republic.
- On
19 April 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozniy upheld the
applicant's action against the Ministry of Internal Affairs and
awarded him 285,330 Russian roubles in wage arrears. The judgment was
not appealed against and became final.
- On
29 April 2005 the Leninskiy District Court sent a writ of execution
to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. On 6 September 2005 the
applicant's lawyer sent the writ and a copy of the judgment of 19
April 2005 to the Grozniy Town Department of the Federal Treasury of
the Russian Federation.
- On
14 August 2006 the judgment of 19 April 2005 was enforced.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained that the judgment in his favour 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 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 judgment of 19 April 2005 had not been
promptly enforced because there had been complex arrangements between
budgets of different levels within the Russian Federation and the
debtor had not had sufficient funds.
- The
applicant maintained his claims.
- The
Court observes that on 19 April 2005 the applicant obtained a
judgment in his favour by which the Ministry of Internal Affairs, a
State body, was to pay him a sum of money representing wage arrears.
The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable. The
judgment of 19 April 2005 was enforced on 14 August 2006. It thus
remained unenforced for approximately sixteen 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 Malinovskiy
v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35
et seq., ECHR 2005; Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, §
41 et seq., 9 June 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, §
19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Burdov, cited above, § 34
et seq., ECHR 2002 III).
- 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 timeously 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 or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not
honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no.
41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia,
no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005). The same principle
applies to difficulties experienced by the State enforcement services
and the complexity of the budgetary arrangement (see Wasserman v.
Russia, no. 15021/02, § 38, 18 November 2004 and
Chernyshov and 11 Others v. Russia, no. 10415/02, § 14,
28 September 2006).
-
The Court finds that by failing for a considerable period of time 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 money he 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 RUR 1,000,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, of
which RUR 285,330 represented the principle amount of the judgment
award, RUR 95,371.55 represented inflation losses incurred during the
period of the non-enforcement and an interest on the judgment award
calculated at the interest rate of the Russian Central Bank and
RUR 619,299 represented losses allegedly sustained by the
applicant due to his employer's failure to pay him salary in good
time. He further claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's claims were
unsubstantiated, excessive and unreasonable.
-
As to the applicant's claim in respect of the principle amount of the
judgment award made on 19 April 2005, the Court notes that it was
paid to him in full on 14 August 2006. The Court therefore rejects
this claim.
- The
Court further reiterates that in the instant case it found a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 in that the award in the applicant's favour had not
been paid to him in good time. The Court reiterates that the adequacy
of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without
reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such
as an extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova
v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005;
Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 36, 27 May
2004). Having regard to the materials in its possession and the fact
that the Government did not furnish any objection to the applicant's
method of calculation of compensation, the Court awards the applicant
RUR 95,372 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable.
- As
to the claim in respect of the damage allegedly sustained by the
applicant due to a delay in the payment of wages, the Court does not
discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary
damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
- The
Court further 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 non-enforcement
and the nature of the domestic award, and making its assessment on an
equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR 1,200 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the
above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claims for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and 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 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)
RUR 95,372 (ninety-five thousand three hundred and seventy-two
Russian roubles) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 1,200 (one thousand and two hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of the settlement;
(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 5 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
