CASE OF GUSAKOVA v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF GUSAKOVA v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 56146/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 October 2016

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Gusakova v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 56146/07) 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 Ms Vera Vasilyevna Gusakova (“the applicant”), on 12 November 2007.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3. On 13 September 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. In accordance with the pilot judgment Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009), the application was adjourned pending its resolution at the domestic level.

4. The Government refused to settle the case and submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of her rights under the Convention in so far as the complaint about the delays in the monthly payments was concerned. As for the complaint concerning the change of the method of adjustment of those payments, the Government argued that the application in that part was manifestly ill-founded. The Court therefore decided to resume examination of the present application.

THE FACTS

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Shuya, in the Ivanovo Region.

6. The applicant sued her former employer (the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kalmykiya, hereafter “the Ministry”).

7. On 27 October 1999 the Elista Town Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya (“the Town Court”) awarded the applicant monthly payments as compensation for damage to her health, with subsequent index-linked adjustment in accordance with changes in the statutory minimum monthly salary. The judgment came into force on 9 November 1999.

8. On 26 November 2002 Federal Law No. 152-FZ was adopted, which, inter alia, amended the procedure for index-linking compensation awards for damage to health. According to the new law, such payments were to be adjusted in accordance with changes in the level of inflation. The minimum monthly salary no longer served as the basis for index-linking.

9. In November 2006 the Ministry applied the new method of index‑linking, and recalculated the monthly payments to be paid to the applicant. This resulted in a decrease in the actual monthly amount she received from 10,370.51 Russian roubles (RUB) to RUB 7,396.59, as established in March 2007.

10. The applicant initiated three sets of proceedings, claiming delay interest in respect of three distinct periods. On 22 February and 3 April 2007 (upheld on 20 July 2007) the Justice of the Peace of Elistinskiy Court Circuit no. 5 of the Republic of Kalmykiya (“the Justice of the Peace”) ordered the Ministry to pay the applicant the interest in respect of certain delays in the monthly payments, in accordance with the judgment of 27 October 1999. On 22 February 2007 the judge agreed with the applicant’s calculation of the delay interest (based on the index-linking of the monthly payments in accordance with the changes in the statutory minimum monthly salary). On 3 April 2007 the court calculated the delay interest based on the amount of the monthly payments, as index-linked in line with the rate of inflation.

11. On 7 May 2007 the Justice of the Peace refused the applicant’s claim for the delay interest. On 8 August 2007 the Town Court quashed the above decision and ordered the Ministry to pay the delay interest as calculated by the applicant. The court held that, in the absence of a relevant judicial decision, the Ministry had unlawfully changed the mode of index-linking ordered by the judgment of 27 October 1999.

12. In the meantime, on 7 May 2007 the Ministry requested clarification of the judgment of 27 October 1999 as regards the method of index-linking. On 25 June 2007 the Town Court held that, as a result of changes in the relevant legislation, as of 1 January 2003 the index-linking of the amounts in question was to be based on changes in the level of inflation. On 11 October 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya upheld the decision of the Town Court.

13. In a letter received on 1 October 2009 the applicant informed the Court that in August 2009 the Ministry had stopped paying the monthly payments, owing to a lack of funds in the relevant budget.

14. According to the Government, the amount due to the applicant from August 2009 onwards was paid to her in full on 8 October 2009. On 11 November 2009 the Town Court awarded her delay interest for late payment in respect of the delays in payment between September and October 2009. The judgment came into force on 23 November 2009, and was executed on 9 December 2009.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

15. The applicant complained that from November 2006 onwards the authorities had failed to honour the judgment of 27 October 1999 by applying a new method of index-linking in respect of the awarded amount, and from August 2009 had discontinued the payments. She relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the relevant parts of which read:

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 ...”

16. The Government acknowledged that there had been some delays in payment of the monthly awards, including in August 2009. However, they argued that those delays had not been excessive. They submitted that the applicant had been paid interest in respect of the delays, and therefore could not claim to be a victim of a violation of her rights under the Convention as far as that part of the application was concerned.

17. Concerning the change in the method of index‑linking, the Government submitted that in 2002 the procedure for index‑linking compensation awards for damage to health had changed in the domestic law, and referred to the decision of 25 June 2007. The Government further submitted that the applicant had not challenged in domestic proceedings either the amount of the monthly payments which had been paid to her since November 2006, or the application of the new method of index-linking.

18. The applicant reiterated her complaint, arguing, inter alia, that Federal Law No. 152-FZ could not be applied retroactively to the payments ordered by the judgment of 27 October 1999. She referred to the decision of 8 August 2007.

A. Admissibility

19. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

20. The parties’ submissions are summarised in paragraphs 16-18 above.

21. The Court reiterates that the right of access to a tribunal guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 196, ECHR 2006‑V, and Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, §§ 40 et seq., Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). The execution must be full and exhaustive (see Matheus v. France, no. 62740/00, § 58, 31 March 2005).

22. The Court has taken the view that domestic courts are better placed to decide the issue of whether and when full and appropriate compliance with a judgment has been secured, and to ascertain the proper method of enforcement. In accordance with its established case-law, the Court requires that any dispute in that respect be first and foremost examined by domestic courts. The Court may only depart from this principle and accept an argument about the improper enforcement of a judgment in the event of flagrant inconsistency between the judgment requirements and a defendant authority’s acts (see Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, § 173, 1 July 2014 with references therein, and Sirotin v. Russia (dec.), no. 38712/03, 14 September 2006).

23. The Court also reiterates that neither Article 6 of the Convention nor Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention guarantees a right to social benefits in a particular amount (see, mutatis mutandis, Aunola v. Finland (dec.). no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001). It is conceivable that a judgment loses its legal force when the legislative framework changes (see Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, § 41, 18 January 2007). In particular, in respect of statutory pension regulations and remuneration for employment for military personnel, the Court has found that payments are “liable to change, and a judicial decision cannot be relied on as a guarantee against such changes in the future” (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006, and Kornev v. Russia (dec.), no. 31766/05, 22 November 2011), even if such changes are to the disadvantage of certain welfare recipients (see Bulgakova, cited above, § 41).

24. In the present case, as regards the allegations of non-enforcement after November 2006, the Court notes that the parties disagree, in essence, about the method of index-linking applied to the monthly payments ordered in the judgment of 27 October 1999 with regard to November 2006 onwards.

25. The Court observes that the parties initiated a number of domestic proceedings concerning payment of the awards due under that judgment.

26. The Court observes that the proceedings brought by the applicant concerned interest for delays in the monthly payments. It is true that the domestic courts’ findings in those proceedings may appear somewhat inconsistent. At the same time the Court notes that the authorities repeatedly awarded the applicant interest for delays, and, thus, showed certain diligence in dealing with the applicant’s case.

27. The Court attaches particular weight to the fact that in May 2007 the debtor authority brought proceedings to obtain clarification of the initial decision regarding the proper method of its enforcement. By a final decision of 25 June 2007 the Town Court found that the index-linking method used by the Ministry was in accordance with the law, and could be applied from 1 January 2003 onwards. That decision was upheld on appeal on 11 October 2007. In reaching that conclusion, the courts analysed in detail the applicable domestic law, as well as the effect of the change in statutory provisions on the way that allowances were adjusted. The Court finds no indication that the proceedings which led to the decision of 25 June 2007 were arbitrary, nor did the interpretation of the award by the domestic courts amount to a “flagrant inconsistency” (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 173). It reiterates its subsidiary role in the matters disputed by the parties, and finds that, in view of the domestic court’s decision clarifying the initial judgment, starting from 11 October 2007 the applicant cannot be said to have an enforceable claim for the amount to be index‑linked in accordance with the statutory minimum monthly salary.

28. The Court notes that the domestic court’s decision clarifying the judgment of 27 October 1999 came into force approximately eleven months after the new method of index‑linking had been applied to the applicant’s payments. However, the Court considers that this period did not exceed a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kosheleva and Others v. Russia, no. 9046/07, § 19, 17 January 2012, and Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 and 15 others, 5 February 2009).

29. As regards the alleged subsequent delays in the monthly payments in 2009, the applicant did not contest the Government’s submissions concerning payment of the outstanding amounts in October 2009 and of the delay interest in December 2009. Nor did she otherwise substantiate her complaints in this part.

30. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

31. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention, including Article 13 of the Convention.

32. The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court’s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. This part of the application must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the complaint concerning non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 October 1999 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş AracıHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy