FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9521/07
by Tamara Konstantinovna PROKOFYEVA
and Mikhail Ivanovich PROKOFYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2007,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009‑...),
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 March 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in respect of the first applicant and the first applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of the second applicant and the second applicant’s comments made in reply to those observations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Tamara Konstantinovna Prokofyeva and Mr Mikhail Ivanovich Prokofyev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1952 and 1946 respectively and live in Orsk, Orenburg Region. 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 applicants brought proceedings against the Finance Department of the town administration seeking compensation for pecuniary damage sustained as a result of erroneous calculation of their utility charges.
By two judgments of 5 July 2006 the justice of peace of the 1st Court Circuit of the Oktyabrskiy District of Orsk granted in part the applicants’ claims and awarded the first and second applicant 3,313.81 and 3,572.81 Russian roubles (RUB) (the amounts approximately equivalent at the material time to 97 and 105 euros (EUR)), respectively.
The judgment in favour of the first applicant was not appealed and entered into force on 18 July 2006.
On 18 September 2006 the same court awarded the second applicant an additional RUB 10 (approximately EUR 2.5) as reimbursement of the court fee.
By a decision of 23 October 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk upheld the judgment of 5 July 2006 in respect of the second applicant on appeal.
The second applicant’s award, including the amount awarded by the judgment of 18 September 2006, was credited to his account on 30 July 2007 by the head of the Finance Department of the town administration.
The first applicant’s award was paid out by the debtor in three instalments, on 18 October and 30 November 2007 and 1 April 2008.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgments in their favour in good time.
2. They further complained of unfairness and partiality of the first‑instance court which had rejected some of the evidence presented by the applicants but had taken into consideration defective evidence from the respondent and had allegedly incorrectly applied the relevant legislation.
3. Finally, they complained that examination of the second applicant’s case by the appeal instance had taken too long.
THE LAW
I. COMPLAINT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST APPLICANT
The first applicant complained about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 5 July 2006 in good time. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which, in so far as relevant, provide 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.”
By a letter dated 19 March 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the complaint of delay in the enforcement raised by the first applicant. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“I, Georgy Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, hereby declare that the Russian authorities acknowledge the lengthy enforcement of the judgment of the Justice of Peace of the First Cirduit of the Oktyabrskiy District of Orsk of 5 July 2006 delivered in favour of Tamara Konstantinovna Prokofyeva. The judgment became final on 20 July 2006 [sic] and was enforced on 1 April 2008, i.e. after 1 year 8 months and 11 days.
The authorities are ready to pay Tamara Konstantinovna Prokofyeva ex gratia a sum of EUR 596 as just satisfaction.
The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
In a letter of 28 April 2010 the first applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
The Court recalls that in its pilot judgment cited above it ordered the Russian Federation to
“grant [adequate and sufficient] redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a judgment debt in their favour who [had] lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications [had been] communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court.”
In the same judgment the Court also held that:
“pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court [would] adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, the proceedings in all cases concerning solely the non-enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the State authorities, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention.”
Having examined the terms of the Government’s declaration, the Court understands them as intending to give the first applicant redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 127 and 145 and point 7 of the operative part).
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of judgment in the first applicant’s favour is acknowledged by the Government explicitly. The Court also notes that the compensation offered is comparable with Court awards in similar cases, considering that the delayed payment was not a principal source of the applicant’s income.
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the first applicant’s complaint about the delay in the enforcement. It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this complaint.
Accordingly, in so far as the complaint about delayed enforcement of the judgment in the first applicant’s favour is concerned, the application should be struck out of the list.
As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention (see the Committee’s decisions of 14-15 September 2009 (CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065) and Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)1 58 concerning the implementation of the Burdov (no. 2) judgment). In any event the Court’s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the present application in respect of the first applicant to the list of cases (see E.G. v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008‑... (extracts)).
II. COMPLAINT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND APPLICANT
The second applicant complained of the authorities’ continuing failure to enforce the judgment of 5 July 2006. In his comments on the Government’s arguments he specified that the amount credited to his account on 30 July 2007 had been paid by a private person and not by the authorities. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Government argued that the judgment in the second applicant’s favour had been enforced within a reasonable time. They further referred to Article 313 of the Civil Code of Russia providing that enforcement of an obligation can be assigned by the debtor to a third party under the condition that a relevant statute does not require otherwise.
The Court observes that in the instant case the judgment of 5 July 2006, final on 23 October 2006, was enforced on 30 July 2007, that is approximately nine months after it entered into force. The Court considers that this period of enforcement complied with the requirements of the Convention. It also rejects the second applicant’s argument that the award due to him was not paid directly by the debtor as frivolous, since the head of the Finance Department of the town administration clearly acted on behalf of her employer when submitting the payment.
This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
III. OTHER COMPLAINTS
The Court has considered the remaining complaints as submitted by the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention. 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 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in respect of the first applicant’s complaint of non-enforcement in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy