THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SHAPKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 34248/05, 46745/06 and 28424/07)
JUDGMENT
This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court
in a judgment of 18 December 2018.
STRASBOURG
15 March 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shapkin and Others 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 Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 February 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in three applications (nos. 34248/05, 46745/06 and 28424/07) 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 three Russian nationals (“the applicants”). The applicants’ details and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the Appendix.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation tо the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants complained, inter alia, of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review between 2003 and 2008.
4. On various dates indicated in the Appendix these complaints were communicated to the respondent Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The Shapkin and Ramazanov cases
5. Between 2005 and 2006 the applicants successfully sued the authorities for miscalculating social benefits. The judgments became final.
6. On various dates the supervisory review courts quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour after applications by the defendant authorities, considering that the lower courts had misapplied substantive or procedural law (for more details see the Appendix).
B. The Kulnev case
7. On 3 July 1986 the applicant was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment. On 25 February 1997 he was acquitted.
8. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with the Sovetskiy District Court, claiming 3,973,578 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on the grounds of wrongful prosecution.
9. On 24 May 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part, awarding him RUB 43,568 in compensation for unpaid salary, the confiscation of his car, and judicial costs and expenses. The judgment was fully enforced.
10. On an unspecified date the applicant brought a similar set of proceedings against the Ministry of Finance, claiming compensation for wrongful prosecution in 1997.
11. On 27 July 2006 the Leninskiy District Court granted the applicant’s claim in full and awarded him RUB 761,815 in compensation for unpaid salary; the confiscation of his car and other property; rent for his flat; travel expenses; and judicial costs and expenses. No appeal against the judgment was lodged and it became final.
12. On 1 February 2007 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed that judgment by way of supervisory review on the grounds that the same issue had already been decided by the judgment of 24 May 1999 and that there had been no grounds to examine the complaint a second time.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
13. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summed up in the Court’s judgment in Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
14. Given that these three applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention, the Court will consider them in a single judgment (see Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 14290/03 et al., § 15, 14 January 2010).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR
15. All the applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour. They further complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same facts. The Court will consider all these cases in the light of both provisions, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public 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
16. The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
17. The Government argued that the supervisory review proceedings resulting in the quashing of the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour had been lawful: they had been initiated by the defendant authorities within the time-limits provided for by domestic law. The supervisory review courts had quashed lower court judgments that had been based on an incorrect application of the substantive law, thus correcting flagrant injustices and eliminating dangerous precedents. In the case of Shapkin, the supervisory review had been necessary to remedy a fundamental defect in the proceedings before the lower courts, namely the incorrect application of the rules of territorial jurisdiction by the Velikiye Luki Town Court.
18. The applicants reiterated their complaints.
19. The Court observes that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of Civil Procedure as in force at the material time (see Kot, cited above, § 29). Some of these violations were found in similar circumstances and similarly concerned the quashing of final domestic judgments awarding various social benefits or compensation to be paid by the State (see, among many other authorities, Khotuleva v. Russia, no. 27114/04, 30 July 2009, and Senchenko and Others and 35 other “Yakut pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 32865/06 et al., 28 May 2009).
20. As regards the Shapkin case, in relation to which the Government referred to the need to correct a procedural defect resulting from a breach of the rules of territorial jurisdiction, the Court reiterates that it has already found that such a defect does not constitute a circumstance that is of such a fundamental and compelling character as to justify the quashing of a final domestic judgment in the applicant’s favour (see Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, §§ 30 and 31, 14 June 2007). It does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
21. The Court accordingly concludes that in all the cases the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review amounts to a breach of the principle of legal certainty, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF NON‑ENFORCEMENT
22. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant in the Ramazanov case further complained about the non‑enforcement of a judgment of 6 June 2005, which had been upheld on 7 September 2005, prior to its quashing.
23. The Government argued that the judgment could not be enforced on account of its quashing by way of the supervisory review procedure.
24. The Court reiterates that the principles that a final judicial decision must not be called into question and that it should be enforced represent two aspects of the same general concept, namely the right to a court. Having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the judgment of 6 June 2005, which had been upheld on 7 September 2005, the Court, while declaring this complaint admissible, does not consider it necessary to examine separately the issue of non-enforcement since the judgment was quashed less than a year after it had become binding and enforceable (see Kulkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 25114/03 et al., § 35, 8 January 2009, with further references).
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
25. Lastly, in the Shapkin and Ramazanov, cases the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of various shortcomings in relation to the same, and other, sets of judicial or enforcement proceedings.
26. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that they are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27. 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
28. The Court notes at the outset that in the cases of Shapkin and Ramzanov the applicants failed to submit claims for just satisfaction within the prescribed time-limits.
29. In the case of Kulnev, the applicant claimed 3,718,247 Russian roubles (RUB) and 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage, respectively.
30. The Government disagreed.
31. The Court observes that the sum awarded by the judgment of 27 July 2006 was higher than that awarded on 24 May 1999. The Court is thus ready to accept that the applicant might have suffered some pecuniary damage in relation to the violations found. Having regard to the principles developed in its case-law on the determination of compensation in similar cases (see, most recently, Kovalenko and Others v. Russia, [Committee], no. 36299/03, 8 December 2015), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award Mr Kulnev a lump sum of EUR 5,000 in respect of all heads of damage.
B. Costs and expenses
32. The applicants submitted no claims in respect of costs and expenses. The Court thus makes no award in this regard.
C. Default interest
33. 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, in respect of all the applications, the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the quashing by way of supervisory review of final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour, and the non‑enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2005, as upheld on 7 September 2005, in the applicant’s favour in the case of Ramazanov admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds, in respect of all the applicants, that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review proceedings of the judgments in the applicants’ favour;
4. Holds, in respect of the case of Ramazanov, that there is no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint on account of the non‑enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2005, as upheld on 7 September 2005, prior to its quashing;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay Mr Konstantin Mikhaylovich Kulnev, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of all heads of damage, to be converted into the currency of the responded State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of Mr Kulnev’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 March 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena TsirliHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No
Application no.
and date
of introduction
Date of communication
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Final domestic judgment
a) date of delivery
b) date of becoming final
Defendant
Award(s)
Enforcement status (prior to quashing)
Quashing
Length of non-enforcement prior to quashing (separate complaint)
34248/05
29/07/2005
29/01/2009
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich SHAPKIN
09/12/1949
Velikiye Luki
Russian
Velikiye Luki Town Court of the Pskov Region
26/07/2005
05/08/2005
The Regional Social Security Office
The medical office was ordered to set the applicant’s disability rate at 100%
A certificate of disability was issued
Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court
14/10/2005
N/A
46745/06
18/10/2006
18/06/2007
Naib Surkhayevich
RAMAZANOV
10/02/1954
Khasavyurt
Russian
Justice of the Peace of the 86th Court Circuit of the Khasavyurtovskiy District
06/06/2005
07/09/2005
The Dagestan Branch of the Pension Fund
RUB 46,327 (pension arrears)+RUB 4,763 (monthly pension)
Remained unenforced
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan
15/06/2006
(the claim was dismissed)
8 months 8 days
28424/07
17/05/2007
12/10/2009
Konstantin Mikhaylovich KULNEV
16/08/1937
Rostov-na-Donu
Russian
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov‑na-Donu
27/07/2006
26/09/2006
The Ministry of Finance
RUB 761,815 (lump sum for damages)
Remained unenforced
Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court
01/02/2007
N/A
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy