THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 50053/06 Pavel Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 June 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Gilberto Felici, judges,

and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 September 2006,

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 Pavel Vladimirovich Vinogradov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Ryazan. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. V. Gandzyuk , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

T he Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin , the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Between 1996 and 2001 the applicant, a member of airborne forces, served on four peacekeeping deployments to Bosnia and Herzegovina. That service entitled him to foreign currency- denominated pay ( должностной оклад в иностранной валюте ), which was delayed due to the underfinancing of the military. The applicant sued his unit and on 2 December 2002 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison awarded him 1,003,437.60 Russian roubles (RUB) [1] . The court made the award payable immediately because of its significance to the applicant and in view of ever-rising consumer prices. No appeal having been lodged, on 16 December 2002 the judgment became final.

On 16 December 2002 the court issued the applicant with a writ of execution on the judgment ( исполнительный лист ).

The applicant submitted the writ to the Treasury of the Ryazan Region for payment, but on 17 December 2002 the agency returned it because no funds had been allocated to such expenditure and advised the applicant to submit the writ to the Ministry of Finance instead.

On 22 May 2003 the applicant submitted the writ to the Ministry.

On 15 March 2005 the Ministry sent the writ to the Treasury of Moscow.

On 19 April 2005 the Treasury of Moscow received the writ.

On 20 July 2005 the Treasury of the Ryazan Region paid the debt to the applicant and the enforcement proceedings were terminated.

On 24 March 2006 the applicant complained to the court about the delay in the enforcement and asked that the payout be raised in line with inflation under Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( индексация присуждённой денежной суммы ). He was claiming an additional RUB 374,984.63 [2] which was meant to make up for a rise in consumer prices between January 2003 and June 2005 .

On 3 April 2006 the court granted this claim only for the period between May and June 2005 (RUB 11,167.50 [3] ) because the applicant had been unable to explain why the writ had not reached the Treasury of Moscow earlier. The court reasoned as follows:

“As it follows from the case-file, on 16 December 2002 the writ had been issued to the applicant and on 17 December 2002 the [agency] had returned it to [him] with advice to submit it the Ministry ....

As it follows from the receipt stamp on the writ, it had been registered ... by the Treasury of Moscow only on 19 April 2005.

The applicant ’ s representative has been unable to explain where the writ had been between December 2002 and 19 April 2005.

From which it can be concluded that the applicant had himself for a long time refrained from submitting the writ for enforcement .... ”

On 30 June 2006 the Military Court of the Moscow Command upheld that decision.

At the applicant ’ s request, on 8 September 2006, the Federal Treasury provided him with the processing history of his enforcement file for the period between May 2003 and July 2005.

Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

“On request by the creditor or debtor, the court which examined the case may adjust the award for inflation ( произвести индексацию ) on the day of the enforcement of the judgment....”

Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 153-O-O of 20 March 2008:

“[Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure] does not make ... the adjustment of judgment debts for inflation conditional on the debtor ’ s fault in the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment because such adjustment is not a sanction for the debtor ’ s civil liability ... but a mechanism for full compensation of the creditor ’ s losses ... amid inflation ....”

COMPLAINT

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about the domestic courts ’ refusal to fully compensate the losses related to inflation, caused by the delayed enforcement of the judgment.

THE LAW

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads:

“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 the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. In their opinion, the applicant was responsible for the fact that his claim was only partially satisfied because he had re-submitted the writ to the creditor two years and four months after it had been returned to him.

The applicant maintained his complaint. He relied on the opinion of the Constitutional Court, according to which judgment debts may be adjusted for inflation irrespective of the debtor ’ s fault in their delayed payment.

To start with, the Court notes that the admissible complaint in the present case does not concern the delay in enforcing the judgment, but only the decision of the domestic courts to award him an adjustment for inflation for a part of the time of such delay. In this respect, the Court reiterates that the “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either existing possessions or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a “legitimate expectation” that they will be realised (see, with further references, Polacek and Polackova v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ), no. 38645/97, § 62, 10 July 2002). Furthermore, it cannot in principle be said that an applicant has a sufficiently established claim amounting to an “asset” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and where the question whether or not the applicant complied with the statutory requirements is to be determined in judicial proceedings . The interpretation of domestic law by the national authorities may not be arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, with further references, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC] , nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12 , § 149, 20 March 2018).

Turning to the present case, the Court notes that by the terms of Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure adjustment of judicial awards for inflation was within the competence of the domestic courts. The applicant ’ s entitlement to that adjustment was disputed in the judicial proceedings and ultimately granted only for a part of the period claimed. The domestic courts concluded that the applicant had failed to prove the authorities ’ responsibility for the entire period and, consequently, granted the adjustment only for the period where such responsibility had been established. Indeed, as it follows from the documents submitted by the parties, the information about the processing history of the writ was obtained by the applicant after the judicial proceedings for adjustment had been completed. In view of this, the interpretation of the domestic courts does not appear to have been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.

Lastly, the Convention does not give raise to any positive obligation for the State to maintain the value of claims or any other assets (see O.N. v. Bulgaria ( dec. ), no. 35221/97, 6 April 2000; and, as a recent example of application of the same principle, Nachkebiya v. Russia [ C ommittee], no. 6351/13, 12 May 2020).

For these reasons the Court considers that the applicant ’ s claim was not a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Accordingly, this complaint 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,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 25 June 2020 .

Olga Chernishova Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President

[1] 31,700 euros (EUR) on the date of the award.

[2] EUR 11,200 on the date of the claim.

[3] EUR 300 on the date of the award.