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 CHISTYAKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 41395/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 December
2008
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 Chistyakov v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 41395/04) 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, Mr Gennadiy Ivanovich
Chistyakov (“the applicant”), on 6 October 2004. On
31 October 2004 the applicant died, and his widow Mrs Antonina
Yakovlevna Chistyakova adopted the application.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms L. Stakhiyeva, a lawyer practising in
Lipetsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
22 November 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1943 and lived in Lipetsk, a town in the
Lipetsk Region.
- In
the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme for
buying a car. The State failed to fulfil its obligation, and the
applicant sued the Ministry of Finance.
- On
5 March 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court of Yakutia awarded the
applicant 108,644.39 Russian roubles (RUB). This judgment became
binding on 9 April 2003 but was not enforced.
- On
the Ministry’s request, on 15 July 2004 the Supreme Court of
Yakutia quashed the judgment on supervisory review and rejected the
applicant’s claim. The Presidium found that the courts below
had ignored a crucial material law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months. Under
section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of
Finance must enforce a judgment within three months.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement and supervisory
review of the judgment. The Court will examine this complaint under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Insofar as relevant, these Articles 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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible.
As to
non-enforcement, the applicant had submitted enforcement papers to
bailiffs instead of the Ministry of Finance.
As to
supervisory review, it had not breached the principle of legal
certainty: it had been preceded by an ordinary appeal, only one
supervisory-review instance had been engaged, the request for the
quashing had been lodged within six months, it had been initiated by
a party to the proceedings, it had been meant to correct a
misapplication of material law. The applicant’s rights under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had not been prejudiced, because he had
received compensation for the car before the litigation.
- The
applicant maintained the complaint. The authorities had needlessly
delayed the enforcement. It had been the Town Court who had submitted
the enforcement papers to the bailiffs. The supervisory review had
breached the principle of legal certainty.
- 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
Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention includes the “right
to a court” (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment
of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 36). To
honour this right, the State must obey a binding judgment (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III) and avoid
quashing it, save in circumstances where the principle of legal
certainty would not be breached (see Protsenko v. Russia, no.
13151/04, §§ 25–34, 31 July 2008).
Besides, an enforceable judgment constitutes a “possession”
within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
Court considers that in the case at hand the State has breached the
applicant’s “right to a court” and prevented him
from peacefully enjoying his possessions in two ways.
- First,
the State avoided paying the judgment debt for one year and three
months. The Government put the blame for this delay on the
applicant’s failure to submit the enforcement papers, but the
Court reiterates that where a judgment is against the State, the
State must take the initiative to enforce it (see Akashev
v. Russia, no. 30616/05, § 21–23,
12 June 2008).
- Second,
the State quashed the judgment because it had been based on an
alleged misinterpretation of material law. However, this ground does
not justify supervisory review (see Kot v. Russia, no.
20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
- The
foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to
conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 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 7,274 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage.
This amount included the domestic award, an adjustment for the cost
of living, and interest for the funds’ retention.
- The
Government contested this claim as unfounded.
- The
Court reiterates that the best redress of a violation of Article 6 is
to put the applicant as far as possible in the position he would have
been if Article 6 had been respected (see Piersack v. Belgium
(Article 50), judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 85, §
12). Applied to the case at hand, this principle would mean that the
State must pay to the applicant the equivalent in euros of the sum
that he should have received under the domestic judgment. In
addition, the Court awards the applicant the inflationary loss caused
by the non-enforcement of the judgment. Making its estimate on the
information at its disposal, the Court awards EUR 5,300 under this
head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested this claim as unreasonable and unfounded.
- The
Court accepts that the applicant must have been distressed by the
non-enforcement and supervisory review of the judgment. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 3,000 under
this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 357.14 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government argued that these expenses have not been shown to have
been actually incurred.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 357.14 for the
proceedings before the Court.
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 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to
pay the applicant’s widow, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 5,300 (five thousand three
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 357.14 (three hundred
fifty-seven euros and fourteen cents), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 4 December 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
