THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SAFRONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 27368/06 and 2 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 October 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Safronov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
6. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
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.
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.”
7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
8. In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having regard to the nature of the judicial awards in the applicants’ favour (see the appended table for details of court orders), the Court considers that the applicants had, by virtue of these judgments, a “legitimate expectation” to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
12. The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non‑enforcement. The Court has already noted the existence of a new domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced in the wake of the pilot judgment, which enables those concerned to seek compensation for damage sustained as a result of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 35555/05 and 6 others, 2 May 2017). Even though the remedy was – or still is – available to the applicants, the Court reiterates that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court, to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 230).
13. However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011). This ruling is without prejudice to the Court’s future assessment of the new remedy.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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. Applications nos. 28915/08 and 38095/12
15. The applicants in applications nos. 28915/08 and 38095/12, who had been invited to submit their claims for just satisfaction before 2 January 2017, did not submit such claims. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account.
16. The Court further notes from the Government’s submissions that the domestic judgments in cases nos. 28915/08 and 38095/12 have remained unenforced to date (see the appended table). The Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour (see Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03 and 3 others, § 68, 21 June 2007, and Salikova v. Russia, no. 25270/06, § 83, 15 July 2010).
B. Application no. 27368/06
17. Mr Safronov, the applicant in application no. 27368/06, claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 187-200, 1 July 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 6,000 to Mr Safronov in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and rejects the remainder of his claims under this head.
C. Default interest
19. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints about the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;
4. Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic judgments in applications nos. 28915/08 and 38095/12 referred to in the appended table;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay Mr Safronov, the applicant in application no. 27368/06, within three months, EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 October 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non‑enforcement period
End date of non‑enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order
27368/06
06/05/2006
Yevgeniy Vadimovich Safronov
18/07/1957
Zarbeyev Rustem Abdullovich
St Petersburg
Vyborg Garrison Military Court, 27/11/2002
10/12/2002
29/12/2017
15 year(s) and 20 day(s)
"... [the Head of military unit OKPP Vyborg] to provide [the applicant] with [housing] ...", the method of execution modified on 18/07/2017 as follows: "to provide [the applicant] with housing in the form of a subsidy for its purchase".
28915/08
20/05/2008
Boris Nikolayevich Filippov
04/01/1959
Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow, 26/12/2001
09/01/2002
pending
More than 16 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 8 day(s)
"... military unit no. 5401 ... to provide [the applicant and his family] with housing ..."
38095/12
03/06/2012
Valeriy Borisovich Domrachev
13/06/1958
235th Garrison Military Court, 06/10/2009
17/10/2009
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 9 month(s)
"... [the Head of military unit no. 44402 and the housing committee] to provide [the applicant and his family] ... with housing in his last place of service, in Moscow".
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy