FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31766/05
by Dmitriy Nikolayevich KORNEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2005,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant’s comments made in reply,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Nikolayevich Kornev, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant served in the Federal Border Patrol Service, which until March 2003 was a separate State executive body, in Petropavlovsk‑Kamchatskiy.
By a judgment of 27 December 2000 the Military Court of the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy Garrison ordered the commander of military unit 2376 to adjust the applicant’s military allowance taking into account the regional salary co-efficient 1.8 established for those working in the regions of the Far North, to pay an interest premium and the allowance arrears. That judgment became final on 8 January 2001.
On 1 June 2001 the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation ordered that the allowances of its military personnel be calculated based on the regional salary co-efficient set for the non-industrial employees of the pertinent regions. For the Far North this co-efficient amounted to 1.6.
According to the presidential decree of 11 March 2003, the Federal Border Patrol Service was re-organised and put under the control of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. By the same decree the existing order of remuneration and other financial compensation and benefits was to be maintained until completion of the staffing measures.
The staffing measures in respect of the military personnel of the former Federal Border Patrol Service were completed by 1 October 2004, and on the same date the order of the Federal Security Service of 1 June 2001 entered into force in respect of the personnel’s remuneration and other financial compensation.
The applicant received his allowance as ordered by the judgment of 27 December 2000 until June 2005, when the regional co-efficient for his allowance was reduced to 1.6, to comply with the order of 1 June 2001.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the authorities’ failure to continue enforcement of the judgment of 27 December 2000 after June 2005.
He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of lack of an effective remedy in respect of the above complaint.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that since June 2005 the authorities had failed to honour the judgment of 27 December 2000, paying his military allowance based on the regional salary co-efficient of 1.6 instead of 1.8 as set in that judgment. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which in the relevant part read as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
“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.”
The Government submitted that the application was manifestly ill‑founded and should be declared inadmissible. The applicant maintained his complaint.
The Court reiterates that neither Article 6, nor Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantee a right to remuneration for employment in a particular amount (see, mutatis mutandis, Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001).
The Court has previously taken the view that 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, it stated in respect of statutory pension regulations that they 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), even if such changes are to the disadvantage of certain welfare recipients (see Bulgakova, cited above, § 41).
The Court considers the above principles to be applicable in the instant case concerning remuneration for employment. It observes that the applicant received his monthly military allowance calculated at the regional co‑efficient of 1.8 until June 2005 when the co-efficient was reduced to 1.6, reflecting the changes in the organisation of his employer and, consequently, the normative provisions governing remuneration of the personnel of the border patrol service. In these circumstances the Court finds that the facts of the case do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked as the applicant no longer has an enforceable claim.
This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of his complaint of non‑enforcement. Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:
“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.”
The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in the terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found above that the applicant’s complaint of non‑enforcement is manifestly ill-founded, Article 13 has no application in the present case.
It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy