THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60823/14
Aleksandr Valentinovich BODROV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 November 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 August 2014,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Valentinovich Bodrov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1966 and is detained in Ufa. He was represented before the Court by Mr R.S. Isyanamanov, a lawyer practising in Ufa.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. First set of proceedings
3. On 17 November 2011 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ufa rejected the applicant’s claim on compensation for unlawful criminal proceedings against the Treasury of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Finance.
4. On 10 April 2012 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic partially granted the applicant’s claim and awarded 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the judgment.
5. On 17 March 2015, after numerious procedural drawbacks attributable to the authorities, the judgment was fully enforced and the applicant received RUB 5,000.
2. Second set of proceedings
6. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim against the authorities seeking to get compensation under the Compensation Act for non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
7. On 14 March 2014 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic sitting as a first instance court rejected the applicant’s claim having found that the applicant had been responsible for the non-enforcement as he had not sent the writ of execution with his bank account details to the debtor (the Ministry of Finance) and had not asked the court to do so. The judgment was upheld on 23 May 2014 by the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic sitting as an appellate court. Meanwhile, the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced (see paragraph 5).
3. Proceedings following the communication of the case
8. On 14 July 2015 the applicant brought yet another case under the Compensation Act seeking to get compensation for delayed enforcement of the judgment of 10 April 2012.
9. On 7 August 2015 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic granted the applicant’s claim partially and awarded him RUB 75,000. The court referred to the fact that since there is a final judgment for the period between 22 May 2012 and 14 March 2014 the awarded amount covered the period elapsed between 14 March 2014 and the enforcement date, that is 17 March 2015.
10. On 25 September 2015 the judgment was fully enforced and the applicant received RUB 75,000.
B. Relevant domestic law
11. Federal Law № 68-FZ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” of 30 April 2010 (in force as of 4 May 2010) provides that in case of a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or of the right to enforcement of a final judgment, the Russian citizens are entitled to seek compensation of the non-pecuniary damage.
COMPLAINTS
12. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgment in his favour. The applicant in addition contended that the new domestic remedy in force since 4 May 2010 was not capable of providing adequate redress in the specific circumstances of his case.
THE LAW
13. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status as a result of the judgment delivered on 7 August 2015 by the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic in the applicant’s favour. In the Government’s view, the judgment acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s right and granted him adequate redress.
14. The applicant disagreed and maintained that the violation was not adequately redressed.
15. The Court notes that the Compensation Act had previously been found to be capable of resolving the issue of lengthy failure to enforce domestic judgments, in cases when the courts acknowledged existence of a violation and provided adequate redress (see Balagurov v. Russia (dec.), no. 9610/05, 2 December 2010, and Zabotin v. Russia (dec.), no. 39185/09, 13 March 2012).
16. As regards the present case, the Court observes that on 7 August 2015 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights by the delay in enforcement of the domestic judgment and awarded the applicant a compensation of RUB 75,000. On 25 September 2015 the judgment was fully enforced and the applicant received RUB 75,000.
17. The Court finds that the applicant successfully used the domestic remedy which was made available to him by the Compensation Act. The Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic duly considered his case in line with the Convention criteria, found a violation of his right to enforcement of the judgment within a reasonable time and peaceful enjoyment of property and awarded compensation comparable with the Court’s awards under Article 41 in similar cases. In this regard even though the Supreme Court awarded compensation for only one year of delayed enforcement, the compensation was such that could have covered the whole period of non-enforcement, that is two years and ten months (compare with Zabotin, cited above, § 9). The Court furthermore notes that the compensation was rapidly paid to the applicant as required by the Convention.
18. The Court concludes that the authorities acknowledged the breach of the applicant’s rights under the Convention and granted him adequate and sufficient redress. Accordingly, he may no longer claim to be a victim of the violation.
19. It follows that the application must be declared manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 December 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy