FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39921/02
by Nikolay Valeryevich TSOMARTOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
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, Mr Nikolay Valeryevich Tsomartov, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Vladikavkaz, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 is a former serviceman of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. He instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior to recover the remuneration for his participation in military operations.
On 19 April 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz (“the District Court”) granted his claim. The court awarded the applicant 233,640 Russian roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force on 29 April 2002. On the same date the District Court issued a writ of execution.
On 5 March 2005 the judgment of 19 April 2002 was fully enforced.
By a decision of 11 July 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s action for compensation of inflation losses sustained as a result of the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 19 April 2002. The court acknowledged that the judgment of 19 April 2002 had been enforced with a substantial delay and awarded the applicant RUR 91,814.51. No appeal was lodged against the decision and it entered into force on 22 July 2005.
On 7 December 2005 the applicant received the amounts awarded to him by the decision of 11 July 2005.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 April 2002.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 19 April 2002 was not enforced in good time. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which reads as follows:
“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 judgment in question had been enforced in full and that the applicant had been awarded compensation for the delayed enforcement of the judgment. They further submitted that the applicant had rejected their friendly-settlement proposal. The Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 19 April 2002.
The applicant maintained his complaint. He stated that the amount of compensation awarded to him by the domestic court was not sufficient and did not cover the non-pecuniary damage sustained by him as a result of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
The Court recalls that for an applicant to be able to claim to be the “victim” of a violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, not only must he have the status of victim at the time the application is introduced, but such status must continue to exist at all stages of the proceedings. It reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑III, p. 846, § 36).
Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the judgment of 19 April 2002 was fully enforced on 5 March 2005. On 11 July 2005 the domestic court acknowledged that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had not been enforced in good time and awarded him compensation of RUR 91,814.51 for the depreciation of the judgment debt. The sum was paid to the applicant on 7 December 2005. In their observations of 2 June 2006 the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 19 April 2002.
The Court further observes that the applicant’s claim before the domestic court was limited to pecuniary loss sustained due to the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment. The Court also notes that the applicant did not appeal against the decision of 11 July 2005. Thus it appears that he did not object to the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic court.
Having regard to the fact that the judgment of 19 April 2002 had been enforced in full, that the Government acknowledged the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the compensation award had been made, that the applicant did not challenge the amount of the award, and, finally, that the compensation was paid within a reasonable time, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention.
It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and that the application is to be declared inadmissible, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy