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 YELDASHEV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 5730/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
May 2010
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 Yeldashev v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 April 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 5730/03) 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 Ruslan Achilovich
Yeldashev (“the applicant”), on 16 January 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially
represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and
subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged in particular that three civil judgments given in
his favour were not enforced in good time.
- By
a decision of 4 December 2008 the Court declared the application
partly admissible.
- The Government, but not the applicant, filed further
written observations (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Noginsk, a town in the Moscow
Region.
- The
applicant is a retired serviceman. He enlisted in 1980, and at the
material time he was a captain of the Space Force, occupying on a
contractual basis the post of a deputy director of social and
political education.
- On
24 July 1998 the Noginsk Town Court ordered the command to grant the
applicant an early discharge because of the command's failure to
fulfil their obligations under the contract. On 4 August 1998 this
judgment became binding but was not enforced immediately, and the
applicant resubmitted his claim.
- On
21 June 2002 the 94th Garrison Military Court ordered the command to
discharge the applicant for health reasons, to provide him with
housing, and to pay 7,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages. On
24 July 2002 this judgment became binding in the part concerning
the discharge and housing. The part concerning the damages was
referred for a retrial.
- On
3 September 2002 the 94th Garrison Military Court ordered the command
to pay RUB 23,817.60 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 9
October 2002 this judgment became binding.
- On
9 June 2003 the applicant received the flat.
-
On 27 June 2003 the applicant was discharged from service.
- On
26 April 2004 the applicant submitted enforcement papers in respect
of the damages, and on 5 February 2005 he received the sum due.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- At
the material time judgments delivered against the public authorities
were executed in accordance with a special procedure established,
inter alia, by Government's Decree No. 143 of 22 February
2001 and, subsequently, by Decree No. 666 of 22 September 2002,
entrusting execution to the Ministry of Finance (see further details
in Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03,
3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, §§ 33-39, 21 June
2007).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION IN
RESPECT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 4 AUGUST 1998
- The
applicant complained that despite the judgment he had not been
discharged on the ground of the command's failure to fulfil their
obligations. Insofar as relevant, this Article reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a]
... tribunal ...”
- The
Government argued that by operation of law this judgment could only
be enforced after the applicant had been provided with housing. In
this respect, they referred to the absence of flats outside Noginsk-9
at the command's disposal in 1998-2002 and to the applicant's refusal
either to participate in “State housing certificates”
programme or to obtain a flat in Noginsk-9.
- 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 judgment remained unenforced for more than four
years: from 4 August 1998 till 27 June 2003, the day on which
the applicant was discharged for another reason and the enforcement,
thus, was overtaken by events. Such a long delay appears
unreasonable. The Court is not convinced by the arguments put forward
by the Government to justify this delay.
- In
particular, the Court has not at its disposal a domestic judicial
decision or other authority that would confirm that under domestic
law the applicant should necessarily have accepted the housing
certificate or a flat in Noginsk-9, in order to have the judgment of
4 August 1998 properly enforced. Thus, the Court cannot conclude
that the applicant obstructed the only possible mode of enforcement
of the judgment (see, by contrast, Filonenko v. Russia,
no. 22094/04, § 20, 31 July 2008). Besides, the scarcity of
flats cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance (see
Lotorevich v. Russia,
no. 16048/06, § 35, 22 January 2009).
Lastly, 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):
it does not transpire from the case-file that the authorities took
timely action to comply with the judgment of 4 August 1998.
- The
foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to
conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 IN RESPECT OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT OF 21 JUNE 2002
- The
applicant complained about delayed enforcement of the judgment of 21
June 2001. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the
relevant parts of which has been quoted above,
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant part of which
reads as follows:
“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.”
- The
Government argued that the judgment of 21 June 2002 had been enforced
within a reasonable time.
- The
Court notes that the enforcement of the judgment lasted from 24 July
2002, when the judgment became binding, to 27 June 2003, when the
applicant was discharged from service. Hence, the enforcement period
amounts to eleven months.
- The
Court considers that the overall time taken by the authorities to
enforce this judgment does not appear unreasonable in the light of
the established case-law, especially bearing in mind that enforcement
of a judgment included allocation of a flat, which may admittedly
take a longer time than payment of a sum of money (see Zheleznyakovy
v. Russia (dec.), no. 3180/03, 15 March 2007).
- There
has, accordingly, been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 IN RESPECT OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2002
- The
applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment of 3
September 2002. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant parts
of which have been quoted above.
- The
Government argued that the delay in the enforcement was largely
attributable to the applicant: between October 2002 and April 2004 he
had not submitted the writ of execution to the competent body, and in
December 2004 he had provided wrong bank account details.
- The
Court observes that the enforcement of the judgment in question
lasted from October 2002 to February 2005, i.e. two years and four
months.
- In
so far as the Government suggested that the period of enforcement
should run from the moment when the applicant submitted enforcement
papers to a competent authority, the Court reiterates that where a
judgment is against the State, the State must take the initiative to
enforce it (see the above cited Akashev, §§ 21–23).
- The
above period appears incompatible with the requirements of the
Convention. The Government did not provide convincing evidence that
appropriate action had been taken by the respondent authorities to
comply with their obligations in this respect. The judgment was not
difficult to enforce because it required only a bank transfer, and
the applicant did not obstruct the enforcement.
- There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
IV. 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
Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim
for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing
together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, “failing
which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part”.
- On
11 December 2008, after the present application had been declared
admissible, the Court invited the applicant to submit his claims for
just satisfaction by 4 February 2009. The applicant did not submit
any such claims.
- In these circumstances, the Court makes no award under
Article 41 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of enforcement of the
judgment of 4 August 1998;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
in respect of enforcement of the judgment of 21 June 2002.
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of enforcement of the
judgment of 3 September 2002.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 May 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren
Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
