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 VESELYASHKIN AND VESELYASHKINA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 5555/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
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 Veselyashkin and
Veselyashkina 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 27 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 5555/06) 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 two stateless persons, Mr Yuriy
Anatolyevich Veselyashkin and Mrs Svetlana Viktorovna Veselyashkina
(“the applicants”), on 17 January 2006.
- 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
15 March 2007 the President of the First Section decided to
communicate the complaint concerning non-enforcement of judgments 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
applicants were born in 1951 and 1954 respectively and live in Istra,
a town in the Moscow Region.
- Following
their renunciation of Russian citizenship in 2000, the applicants
were engaged in three actions against the police.
- On
28 March 2003 the Istra Town Court awarded each applicant against the
Police Passport Service 410.75 Russian roubles (RUB) for
non-pecuniary damage and costs caused by the Service's refusal to
issue identity and residence papers. This judgment became binding on
8 April 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006.
- On
15 October 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit 61 of the Istra
District awarded each applicant against the Police Passport Service
RUB 505 for non-pecuniary damage and costs caused by defamation. This
judgment became binding on 16 October 2003 and was enforced on 9
October 2006.
- On
2 December 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit 61 of the Istra
District awarded the second applicant against the Police Passport
Service RUB 5,000 for costs. This judgment became binding on 13
December 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006.
- On
6 December 2006 the awards were adjusted for the cost of living, and
on 22 June 2007 the sum of the adjustment was paid to the applicants.
- In
separate proceedings that lasted from February 2005 to December 2005
the applicants challenged in courts a bailiff's return of enforcement
papers.
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.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the
delayed enforcement of the judgments. 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. The
applicants had lost their victim status because the awards had been
paid and adjusted for the cost of living. The applicants had abused
their right of petition because they had misrepresented facts,
because their true intention had been to be deported to Canada at the
State's expense, and because they had shown impertinence towards the
President of Russia.
- The
applicants maintained their complaint.
- With
regard to the victim status, the Court reiterates that to deprive an
applicant of this status the State must acknowledge a breach of the
Convention and provide redress for it (see
Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June
1995, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1996-III, § 36).
In the case at hand the Court has no evidence that the adjustment for
the cost of living involved an acknowledgement of the breach. In any
event, this adjustment was inadequate because
it did not compensate non-pecuniary damage.
- With
regard to abuse of the right of petition, the Court finds nothing in
the applicants' behaviour that can be qualified so.
- 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 an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement
of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov
v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 III). To decide if the delay was
reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement
proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and
what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan
v. Russia,
no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
- In
the case at hand, the enforcement of the three judgments lasted
respectively three years and six months, two years and 11 months, and
two years and nine months.
- These
periods are incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. The
judgments were relatively easy to enforce, and the applicants do not
seem to have obstructed the enforcement.
- There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants also complained under Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention
about the conditions of their life, under Article 6 of the Convention
about the length of the proceedings against the bailiff, and under
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 about
the impossibility to work or travel without the identity papers.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds
that they 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 is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with 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.”
- The
applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning
non-enforcement of judgments admissible and the remainder of the
applications inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 December 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
