THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37565/05
Nataliya Viktorovna PERELYGINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 April 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nataliya Viktorovna Perelygina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Stavropol. She was represented before the Court by the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a law company practising in Moscow.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In August 2002 the applicant’s car was damaged as a result of the mudslide that hit a resort in the Krasnodar Region.
On 1 June 2004 the Primorskiy District Court of Novorossiysk found the head of the Novorossiysk Town Council, Mr P., guilty of criminal negligence that resulted in the death of several persons and other serious damage. The applicant was declared a victim in the course of the criminal proceedings. In the operative part of the judgment the District Court recognised the right of numerous named plaintiffs to compensation, and referred the issue of the amount of compensation to the civil courts. The applicant was not named among the plaintiffs entitled to compensation.
The judgment of the District Court was not appealed against and became final on 15 June 2004.
On an unspecified date the applicant brought civil proceeding against the Novorossiysk Town Council claiming compensation for the damaged car.
On 8 February 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk ordered the Novorossiysk Town Council to pay the applicant compensation for the damaged car. In its reasoning the District Court referred to the findings of the judgment of 1 June 2004 on account of Mr P.’s criminal negligence.
On 29 March 2005 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 8 February 2005 on appeal and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The Regional Court found no causal link between Mr P.’s criminal negligence and damage to the applicant’s car.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that despite the final findings of the Primorskiy District Court of Novorossiysk on 1 June 2004 on the head of the Novorossiysk Town Council’s conviction for criminal negligence, the Krasnodar Regional Court had dismissed her claim for damages.
THE LAW
The Government argued that the findings of the criminal court had been binding on the court examining the civil-law consequences of convicted person’s actions only to the extent that such actions had been committed and that they had been committed by that person. They further submitted that the other facts, such as causal link between the unlawful action and the damage must be proven in course of civil proceedings. Thus, the civil court respects the criminal court’s findings when it makes its own assessment of civil-law consequences of the crime.
The applicant complains about a violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the civil courts’ refusal to take into account the findings of the criminal court when examining her civil claim for damage caused to her car during the same natural disaster.
The Court observes that the applicant was not listed in the decision adopted by the criminal court among the persons entitled to compensation. Thus, it does not result from the materials available to the Court that the criminal court examined the existence of a causal link between criminal negligence of the head of local administration and the damage subsequently claimed by the applicant. This issue was examined in the framework of separate set of civil proceedings initiated by the applicant and resulted in the domestic courts’ conclusion that there was no such link and the ensuing dismissal of the applicant’s claim.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
Having regard to its finding above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the same facts complained of under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 May 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy