Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/24669.02-en-20051013/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-03 20:42:12
Document Index: 436452407

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 40', '§ 74', '§ 145', '§ 44', '§ 47', '§ 33', '§ 2', '§ 29', '§ 40']

GERASIMOVA v. RUSSIA About Project
1. The case originated in an application (no. 24669/02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Galina Petrovna Gerasimova (“the applicant”), on 20 May 2002.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Pavel Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
9. On 4 September 1995 the Commercial Court of the Samara Region (Арбитражный суд Самарской области) granted a claim by the applicant's employer – a private company – for recovery of damages against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service (Управление социальной защиты населения администрации г. Чапаевска).
10. On 15 August 1997 the applicant's employer assigned her a part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUR 114,000,000 towards salary due.1 The applicant applied to the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region for execution of the judgment on 29 May 1998.
11. It appears that by 2001 only the amount of RUR 16,0002 has been paid to the applicant. As the judgment had not been executed in full, in 2001 she filed a claim with the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service for recovery of the sum with interest.
15. The Government, in their additional observations of 12 January 2005 following the Court's decision on admissibility of 16 September 2004, insisted that the Russian Federation could not be held responsible for non-execution of the judgment against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service as this was a municipal institution and not a State organisation. They further reiterated that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as she had not applied to the bailiffs' service for enforcement of the judgment. The Government furnished statistical data concerning the efficiency of the bailiffs' service in the Russian Federation and, in particular, in Chapayevsk in 1998 and 1999. In this respect they also submitted that the present case was substantially different from the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III), since the judgment in question did not concern payment of social benefits. The Government made no submissions on the merits of the case.
16. The applicant contended that she had applied to the bailiffs' service in due course and that the Russian Federation was responsible for non-execution of the judgment.
17. The Court observes that it has examined and rejected the Government's objections in its decision on admissibility of 16 September 2004. The Government did not make any new submissions that would warrant a fresh examination of the same issues. In particular, the general statistics concerning the efficiency of the bailiffs' service in 1998 and 1999 is not relevant for the case at hand since in the aforementioned decision the Court found that the execution of the judgment was prevented by the failure to make adequate budgetary provisions by appropriate legislative measures, over which the bailiffs could not possibly have any control. The Court further observes that nothing in the Burdov case suggests that the application of principles concerning the execution of a final judgment established in the Court's case-law (see, among others, Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510, § 40, and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V) is limited to instances related to payment of social benefits. In any event, the Court reiterates that, according to Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application rather than during the procedure on the merits (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 145, ECHR 2001-VII, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X). The Government's objection must therefore be dismissed.
18. Turning to the merits of the case, the Court notes that on 15 August 1997, pursuant to the assignment of claims, the applicant became a creditor in the amount of RUR 114,000,000 under the final judgment of 4 September 1995 of the Commercial Court of Samara Region against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service. On 21 June 2002, when the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region dismissed the applicant's claim for recovery of the sum under the judgment with interest due to the failure to execute it, the outstanding amount came to RUR 87,445. The judgment has not to date been fully executed, which is not in dispute by the parties.
21. Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing for years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities prevented her from receiving the money she could reasonably have expected to receive.
24. The applicant claimed USD 638,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, of which USD 40,000 was for the principal amounts awarded by the judgment of the Commercial Court of the Samara Region of 4 September 1995 and also by a judgment of 2 October 1996. The outstanding part of the amount claimed related to alleged damage to the applicant's property caused by State authorities, the poor state of the environment the applicant had to live in, a fine allegedly imposed on her in 1994-1995 and items allegedly seized in the course of searches of the applicant's flat conducted in 1999-2001. The applicant further submitted that she had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the authorities' failure to execute the judgment of 4 September 1995 and also a failure to execute the judgment of 2 October 1996 in full in due time, but did not specify her claims in that respect.
25. The Government submitted that the applicant's claims relating to the failure to execute the judgment of the Commercial Court of the Samara Region of 4 September 1995 were excessive and unsubstantiated. They considered the rest of the claims, including those relating to the complaints that the Court declared inadmissible by the partial decision on admissibility of 13 November 2003, to be irrelevant. In the Government's view, the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient compensation in the present case.
26. The Court notes that the State's outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment of the Commercial Court of the Samara Region of 4 September 1995 is not in dispute. Accordingly, the applicant is still entitled to recover the principal amount of the debt in the course of domestic proceedings. The Court recalls that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the position he would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Makarova and Others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, § 47, 24 February 2005 and Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005). The Court finds that in the present case the same principle applies, having regard to the violations found. It therefore considers that the Government should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the domestic courts. For this reason the Court does not find it necessary to make an award for pecuniary damage in so far as it relates to the principal amount.
27. As regards the remainder of the applicant's claims for pecuniary damage, the Court notes, firstly, that by the partial decision on admissibility of 13 November 2003 it declared the applicant's complaints concerning the alleged failure to execute the judgment of the Commercial Court of the Samara Region of 2 October 1996 and the search of the applicant's flat inadmissible. The other claims made by the applicant do not relate to the subject of the present proceedings. Accordingly, the Court rejects the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage.
28. On the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress because of the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment at issue. The Court takes into account the amount and nature of the award, the lengthy period of the authorities' inactivity and the fact that the judgment has not been fully enforced. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
Whereas I concur with the Chamber's finding that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of a lengthy non-enforcement of a judicial decision in the applicant's favour and, as a consequence, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, I would like to discuss in more detail the Government's objection to the admissibility of the application founded on the premise that self-government (municipal) bodies do not form part of the system of State bodies by virtue of Article 12 of the Russian Constitution (see paragraph 15 of the judgment) and, consequently, the State is not responsible for the acts of the Chapayevsk Social Security Service.
1. As the national judge, I bear witness to many discussions about Article 12 of the Constitution and, especially, of its provision that “local self-government bodies shall not form part of the system of State bodies”. Contradictory interpretations of that provision were given in the light of Article 132 § 2 of the Constitution which conferred public-law functions on the local self-government bodies: “Local self-government bodies may be vested by law with certain State functions and accordingly receive material and financial resources which are necessary for their implementation. The implementation of the State functions shall be controlled by the State”.
2. The protection of social rights of individuals is an integral part of the general system for the protection of human rights which, under the Russian Constitution, is either under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federation (Article 71) or under the joint jurisdiction of the federation and its constituent entities (Article 72), but never, and I emphasise – never, under the exclusive jurisdiction of a constituent entity.
If it were otherwise, the State would not be responsible for ensuring effective respect for many individual rights, including those enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Obviously, such a construction would be contrary to Article 1 of the Convention and to the “ordinary meaning” of the term “jurisdiction”. Explaining the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, the Court noted that it “makes no distinction as to the type of rule or measure concerned, and does not exclude any part of the member States' 'jurisdiction' from scrutiny under the Convention” (Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 29, ECHR 1999-I).
I will not speculate about a possible breach of the “vertical of power”. If the term “jurisdiction” is to be linked to the concept of “responsibility”, the argument that a State is not responsible for the acts (failures to act) of the agencies located within its territory, even if those are municipal agencies, is unsustainable. Indeed, as the Court noted on many occasions, a State is not responsible for the obligations of “third parties”, such as private individuals, companies or banks (see, among others, Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002). However, it is highly unlikely that the Court would include municipal bodies in that category of “third persons”, even having regard to the respondent State's margin of appreciation.
Once the Court rejected the argument by a State that denied its responsibility for the acts of the independent judicial authorities: “In all cases before the Court, what is in issue is the international responsibility of the State” (Lukanov v. Bulgaria, judgment of 20 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, § 40).
1 The amount is indicated without regard to the revaluation of 1998. In accordance with the Presidential Decree “On the Modification of the Face Value of Russian Currency and Standards of Value” of 4 August 1997, 1,000 “old” roubles became 1 “new” rouble as of 1 January 1998.
2 The amount is indicated with regard to the revaluation of 1998. It thus corresponded to 16,000,000 “old” roubles.
GERASIMOVA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
GERASIMOVA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT – CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER