FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 7105/02
by Elena Viktorovna PEREVOZCHIKOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Anatoly Kovler,
Renate Jaeger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2001,
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 Elena Viktorovna Perevozchikova, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Staryi Oskol. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant worked at an engineering plant. Under her contract, the plant was to provide her with a at. The plant defaulted on this obligation, and the applicant brought a civil action.
On 10 June 1999 the Staryi Oskol Town Court ordered the plant to “give the applicant a at that would offer at least 9 m² per family member”. This judgment became binding on 22 June 1999.
On 16 November 2000 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory-review and ordered a rehearing.
On 6 February 2001 the regional court ordered the plant to “give the applicant a at for eight persons in accordance with applicable laws on housing”. This judgment became binding on the same day, was submitted to a bailiff for enforcement, but was not enforced immediately.
On 11 May 2001 the bailiff fined the administration of the plant for its failure to comply with the judgment. On appeal, this fine was quashed, because the plant did take steps to comply with the judgment, and because the applicant had rejected ats proposed by the plant.
On 5 November 2001 the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings, because the applicant had refused the ats offered by the plant. On 11 June 2002 the town court ordered the bailiff to resume the proceedings, because the ats refused by the applicant had been of an improper quality.
On 2 December 2002 the bailiff fined the administration of the plant for its failure to comply with the judgment. On appeal, this fine was quashed, because, among other reasons, the plant had no available ats.
On 30 January and 4 August 2003 the bailiff fined the administration of the plant for its failure to comply with the judgment.
On 10 July and 15 September 2003 the bailiff warned the administration of the plant about criminal responsibility for non-compliance with binding judgments. On 7 October 2003 the bailiff asked the police to prosecute the manager of the plant, but the police refused because the manager had no case to answer.
On 8 January 2004 the bailiff asked the court to clarify the judgment, because the applicant and the plant argued how many square metres per person the at was to offer. On 28 April 2004 the town court clarified the judgment.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment in two months.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the courts’ judgments.
2. The applicant complained under Articles 6, 13, and 14 of the Convention about the domestic courts’ findings and the conduct of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As far as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... 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.
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 argued that this complaint was inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The State had not been responsible for the debts of the plant, because the plant had been a private company. The bailiffs had done everything they could to enforce the judgment; the courts had not idled either.
The applicant argued that her complaint was admissible. Even if the plant had been a private company, it had had to obey the judgments. The bailiffs had wrongly closed the enforcement proceedings and idled.
The Court notes that the complaint concerns two judgments: those of 10 June 1999 and 6 February 2001.
With regard to the judgment of 10 June 1999, the complaint has been submitted outside the six-month time limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, because the situation complained of ended on 16 November 2000 when the Presidium of the regional court quashed the judgment.
It follows that this part of the complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
With regard to the judgment of 6 February 2001, the Court reiterates that where a judgment is against a private person, the Court’s role is limited to ascertaining that the State diligently urged the creditor to comply with the judgment (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, §§ 69–70, 3 February 2005). In the case at hand, the authorities seem to have acted with requisite diligence. The bailiff four times fined the plant, twice warned the plant of criminal responsibility, once asked the police to prosecute the manager, and once asked the court to clarify the judgment. The court assisted the bailiff by promptly correcting his procedural mistakes and by clarifying the judgment. It appears that the main reason of the non-enforcement was the plant’s lack of available resources, for which the State cannot be held responsible.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant complained under Articles 6, 13, and 14 of the Convention about the domestic courts’ findings and the conduct of the proceedings.
However, 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 they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy