Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 88
July-August 2006
Kanayev v. Russia - 43726/02
Judgment 27.7.2006 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Pecuniary dispute between active navy officer and his command: incompatible ratione materiae
Facts: The applicant is an active officer of the Russian navy. In March 2002 a military court awarded him arrears for travel expenses, together with an award for legal expenses. The decision having become final the same month, the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the State treasury office. In April 2002 the writ was returned to him unexecuted. The treasury office explained that the debtor had no available funds which could be used for paying the judgment debt. The applicant was advised to address the writ of execution to the head office of the Ministry of Finance, which the applicant did, to no avail. In August 2002 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that the writ of execution had been transmitted to the Ministry of Defence with a view to prepare a budget call for the respective amount. In December 2002 the Ministry of Finance paid the arrears due and in March 2004 the applicant received the sum award for his legal expenses. Before the Court he complained about the lengthy failure to enforce the judgment in his favour, due to lack of State funds.
Law: Article 6 (1) – The question arose whether the Court had competence ratione materiae to examine the complaint from the standpoint of this provision. In the Pellegrin v. France judgment the Court had adopted a functional test for the purposes of determining the applicability of this provision to employment disputes involving public servants, based on the nature of the employee’s duties and responsibilities: an employment dispute is excluded from the scope of Article 6(1) if it concerns a public servant whose duties typify the specific activities of the public service in so far as he or she acts as the depository of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State. In the present case the applicant was an active officer of the Russian navy, a third rank captain, and thus in this capacity, “wielded a portion of the State’s sovereign power” within the meaning that could reasonably be conferred on this notion in the light of the Pellegrin judgment. Accordingly, Article 6(1) was not applicable to the dispute between the applicant and his command and the ensuing enforcement proceedings, which must be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6: incompatibleratione materiae.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – In line with the Court’s established case-law, it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. The Government had not provided any plausible justification for the fact that it had taken the domestic authorities nine and a half months to pay the amount of arrears awarded (in itself arguably a tolerable delay in the circumstances) and almost two years to pay the rest of the judgment debt.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage sustained.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy