Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)152[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Bezymyannaya against Russian Federation
(Application No. 21851/03, judgment of 22 December 2009, final on 22 March 2010)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that this case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court as all courts declined jurisdiction over her claim (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Russia’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures, preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)152
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Bezymyannaya against Russian Federation
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court for the determination of her civil claim lodged in 2002 with a view to invalidating a property contract. The claim was never examined as the domestic courts all declined jurisdiction over her case. The applicant first applied to the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod which considered that the case fell under the jurisdiction of commercial courts. However, the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region, to which the applicant’s case was transferred, found that it had no jurisdiction over the claim and discontinued the proceedings.
The European Court noted that the applicant was locked in a vicious circle in which the national courts were pointing at each other and refusing to hear her case in view of the alleged limitations of their judicial powers, thus leaving the applicant in a judicial vacuum. The Court consequently found that there had been an unjustified infringement of the very essence of the applicant’s right to a tribunal (violation of Article 6§1).
Individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
2 000 EUR
-
2 000 EUR
Paid on 01/11/2005
b) Individual measures
The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage she sustained as a result of the violation found.
On 9 July 2010 the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region reopened the applicant’s case, quashed the decision to refuse jurisdiction over it, and on 20 September 2010 delivered a judgment on the merits of the case, rejecting the applicant’s claims. The applicant appealed, and on 31 January 2011 the 19th Appeal Commercial Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant has not submitted further cassation appeal against that judgment.
Therefore no further individual measure appears necessary.
II.General measures
The Russian authorities recognised that the violation occurred because of the domestic courts’ refusal to consider the applicant’s case on the merits due to different interpretation of the jurisdictional parameters of their authority. The Russian authorities underlined that this was unacceptable under the domestic law, Article 47 of the Constitution providing the right of access to a court and part two of Article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibiting disputes over jurisdiction, and these provisions are now fully implemented in practice.
The judgment of the Court has been sent out to the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region, to the Supreme Court, to the Supreme Commercial Court, to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and to the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of Russia in the Central Federal Circuit, and has also been disseminated amongst the regional courts of general jurisdiction, by a circular letter of the Supreme Court of 4 June 2010.
On 2 March 2010 the judgment of the European Court was discussed at the session of judges of the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region. On 8 July 2010 the Presidium of the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region ruled that while examining issues related to their jurisdiction over a claim, judges have to comply with the principle stemming from the European Court’s practice. In particular, judges have an obligation to entertain a claim without examining whether they have jurisdiction over it if a court of another order of jurisdictions has previously refused to entertain a claim on account of a lack of jurisdiction.
The Court’s judgment was published in Russian in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights (Russian edition), No. 5/2010.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the Russian Federation has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy