FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KOROLEV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 25550/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 April 2007
FINAL
12/07/2007
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 Korolev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrL. Loucaides, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 March 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 25550/05) 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 Vladimir Petrovich Korolev (“the applicant”), on 9 September 2003.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 4 April 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Orenburg.
5. In 2000 the applicant sued the communication department of the Ural Military Circuit of the Ministry of Defence for social benefits provided to former military officers by law.
6. On 6 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg accepted the applicant's action in part and awarded him 3,135.20 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 130 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
7. On 19 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution. It also sent a copy of the writ to the defendant.
8. In February 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the District Court because the defendant did not have funds to enforce the judgment.
9. On 4 April 2001 a bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings.
10. On 19 November 2003 the applicant was paid RUR 3,135.20.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
11. The applicant complained that the judgment 6 December 2000 was not enforced in good time. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002‑III). The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time... 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...”
A. Admissibility
12. The Court notes that the application 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
13. The Government claimed that the judgment of 6 December 2000 had not been enforced for a long time because the debtor, a State body, had not had funds.
14. The applicant maintained his complaints.
15. The Court observes that on 6 December 2000 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour by which he was to be paid a certain sum of money by the communication department of the Ural Military Circuit of the Ministry of Defence, a State body. The judgment was not appealed against and became final and enforceable. It was fully enforced on 19 November 2003 when the sum was credited to the applicant's account. Thus, the judgment of 6 December 2000 remained unenforced for approximately two years and eleven months.
16. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 19 et seq., ECHR 2002‑III; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Gerasimova v. Russia, no. 24669/02, § 17 et seq., 13 October 2005).
17. Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The Court notes that the judgment was not enforced because the debtor did not have financial recourses. However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005). The Court finds that by failing for years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the money he had legitimately expected to receive.
18. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. 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.”
A. Damage
20. The applicant claimed RUR 3,135.20 in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the judgment award made in his favour on 6 December 2000. He further claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
21. The Government submitted that the judgment award had already been paid to the applicant and thus, his claims in respect of pecuniary damage should be dismissed. They further submitted that the applicant's claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage were excessive and unreasonable. In any event, the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
22. As regards the claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court observes that the judgment award was paid to the applicant in full in November 2003; it therefore rejects this claim.
23. On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. The Court takes into account the relevant aspects, such as the length of the enforcement proceedings and the nature of the domestic award, and making its assessment on an equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR 2,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount.
B. Costs and expenses
24. The applicant also claimed RUR 212 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
25. The Government did not comment.
26. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
27. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 2,300 (two thousand and three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement;
(ii) RUR 212 (two hundred and twelve Russian roubles) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren NielsenLoukis Loucaides
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy