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 VERSHININA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 3462/04)
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 Vershinina 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. 3462/04) 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 Mariya Pavlovna
Vershinina (“the applicant”), on 1 December 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr O. Sergeyev, director of
the Krasnokamsk Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the
former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court
of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mrs V.
Milinchuk.
- On
30 August 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 1953 and lives in Krasnokamsk, the Perm Region.
- On 23 May 1999 the applicant's son, born in 1981, was
drafted into military service. On 17 October 1999 he was killed
during military operations in Chechnya. In 2000 the applicant
instituted proceedings for damages against the Ministry of Defence.
She claimed that her son was sent to participate in military
operations in breach of statutory provisions since he had only served
for four months while it was only permitted to send for military
operations servicemen who had served no less than 12 months.
- On
13 July 2001 the Krasnokamskiy Town Court granted the claim and
awarded the applicant damages in the amount of 50,000 roubles (RUR)
and costs in the amount of RUR 10. The judgment was not appealed
against and became final.
- On
1 October 2001 a writ of execution was issued.
- On
9 November 2001 the applicant sent the writ of execution to the
Moscow Department of Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance.
- On
29 November 2001 the Moscow Department of Federal Treasury returned
the writ to the applicant and advised her that it should be sent
directly to the Ministry of Finance.
- On
18 December 2001 the applicant sent the writ of execution to the
Ministry of Finance.
- On
15 February 2002 the applicant sent a complaint to the Minister of
Finance concerning non-execution of the judgment in her favour.
- In
the reply of 30 May 2002 the applicant was informed that the Ministry
of Finance forwarded the writ of execution to the Ministry of
Defence. However the latter did not take necessary measures in order
to execute the payment under the writ.
- On
27 March 2003 the applicant sent a complaint to the Minister of
Defence concerning non-execution of the judgment in her favour.
- On
25 June 2003 the sum awarded on 13 July 2001 was paid to the
applicant.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained that the judgment of 13 July 2001 remained
unenforced for a long 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
applicant complained about the delay in receiving the amount awarded
to her by the domestic court in the proceedings for damages related
to her son being killed in action.
- The
Government accepted that the enforcement of the judgment of 13 July
2001 was carried out with a delay in breach of the domestic law and
the Convention. However they considered that the applicant had abused
her right of petition because she did not make clear in her
application before the Court that the judgment in question had
already been enforced. They claimed that her application should be
struck out of the list of cases.
- The Court observes that on 13
July 2001 the applicant obtained a judgment in
her favour by which she was to be paid a certain sum of money by the
communication department of the Ministry of Defence, a State body.
The judgment was not appealed against and became final and
enforceable. It was fully enforced on 25 June 2003 when the sum was
credited to the applicant's account. Thus, the judgment of 13 July
2001 remained unenforced for nearly 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 persuading it to reach a
different conclusion in the present case. The Court notes that the
judgment was not enforced without any justification. 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 her right to a court and prevented her from receiving the money
she had legitimately expected to receive. The Court notes the
Government's argument concerning the applicant's failure to indicate
clearly in the application form that the judgment had been enforced
before she applied to the Court. However, it does not consider this
fact sufficient to find an abuse of petition in the present case.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
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 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the applicant's claims as unreasonable and
excessive. They considered that an acknowledgment of a violation
would constitute sufficient just satisfaction to the applicant.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have
suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State
authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in her 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
2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claims under this head, accordingly the Court makes
no award in respect of costs and expenses.
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;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
- 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, EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
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 26 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
