THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9492/13 Lyubov Nikolayevna RYAZHSKAYA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 April 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Georgios A. Serghides , President, Erik Wennerström , Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 December 2012,

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 Lyubov Nikolayevna Ryazhskaya , is a Russian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Vladikavkaz. She was represented before the Court by Ms T. Baskayeva , a lawyer practising in Vladikavkaz.

The 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.

From the late 1990s to early 2000s the applicant, who served in the Interior Ministry Troops, was deployed to conflict zones in the north Caucasus. This deployment entitled her to extra pay and allowances. Because they were not paid in full, the applicant sued her command.

On 24 September 2003 the Vladikavkaz Garrison Military Court ordered the command to pay the dues without, however, specifying their amount. On 9 October 2003 the judgment became final.

In March 2005 the applicant asked the court to clarify its judgment and specify the amount owed to her. On 19 April 2005 the court specified that that the amount due was 361,164.75 Russian roubles (RUB). [1]

On 18 May 2005 the applicant was issued with a writ of execution on the judgment ( исполнительный лист ).

On 17 August 2005 she received the money.

Later, the applicant complained to the court that the enforcement had been delayed and asked that the judgment debt be raised in line with inflation under Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( индексация присуждённой денежной суммы ). She was claiming an additional RUB 90,399.78 [2] , which was meant to make up for a rise in consumer prices.

On 14 August 2012 the court rejected this claim because the applicant herself had caused the delay by not submitting the writ of execution to a competent treasury office in time.

In her appeal the applicant cited an opinion by the Constitutional Court, according to which the adjustment for inflation might be granted regardless of who was responsible for the delay.

On 31 October 2012 the Military Court of the North Caucasus Command upheld the refusal. It found that the only legal way for the Garrison Court to specify the amount due was to deliver an additional judgment ( дополнительное решение ) and not to clarify the existing one ( разъяснение решения ), that the applicant had never sought such an additional judgment, and that, as a result, the judgment was enforced only in 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. 244-O- П 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

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the judgment in her favour.

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 this complaint was inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. In their opinion, the applicant had herself to blame for the delay because she had asked the court to clarify the judgment after almost two years.

The applicant maintained her complaint. In her opinion, no action had been required on her part to have the judgment enforced. She had asked the court to clarify the judgment only in reaction to the delay.

The Court notes that pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it may only deal with the matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. The Court must apply this rule even though the Government omit it from their pleadings (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC] , nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12 , § 138, 20 March 2018).

In this connection, the Court reiterates that in 2003–2005, when the applicant ’ s judgment was being enforced, Russian law offered no effective remedy against the delayed enforcement of judgment debts for the payment of public money (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, § 117, ECHR 2009). Accordingly, six months began to run on 17 August 2005 when the applicant ’ s judgment was enforced (see Kukalo v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 63995/00, 3 June 2004), whereas the application was introduced on 11 December 2012, that is seven years, three months, and twenty-four days later.

Accordingly, this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Declares the application inadmissible.

Olga Chernishova Georgios A. Serghides Deputy Registrar President

[1] 10,000 Euros (EUR).

[2] EUR 2,300.