THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 67183/13 Sergey Ivanovich LEONOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 September 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova , Alena Poláčková , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 September 2007,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgement procedure taken in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009),

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 Sergey Ivanovich Leonov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Voronezh. He was represented before the Court by Mr I.V. Sivoldayev , a lawyer practising in Voronezh.

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 .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Committee of Social Protection of Population of the Administration of Leninskiy District of Voronezh for indexation with regard to delayed payments of certain social allowances .

On 22 November 2002, the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant ’ s claim and awarded him 201.87 Russian roubles (RUB).

On 10 April 2003 the judgment was upheld on appeal and became final.

On 8 October 2003 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs ’ service.

On 10 October 2003 the enforcement proceedings in respect to the judgment of 22 November 2002 were initiated.

According to the Government, on 30 December 2003 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued upon the applicant ’ s request. No documents were enclosed in support of this version of events as the relevant files had been destroyed.

It appears that the judgment of 22 November 2002 remained unenforced.

B. Relevant domestic law

Federal Law â„– 68-FZ of 30 April 2010 (in force as of 4 May 2010) provides that in the event of a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or of the right to enforcement of a final judgment, Russian citizens are entitled to seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Federal Law â„– 69-FZ adopted on the same day introduced the pertinent changes in the Russian legislation.

Section 6.2 of Federal Law â„– 68-FZ provides that everyone who has an application pending with the European Court of Human Rights concerning a complaint of the nature described in the law has six months to bring the complaint to the domestic courts.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the prolonged non ‑ enforcement of the judgment in his favour.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that by failing for years to pay him RUB 201.87 in accordance with the binding and enforceable judgment the authorities acted in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time 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 Government argued that the applicant himself was responsible for non-enforcement as he had withdrawn the writ of execution and had not re ‑ submitted it. Furthermore, the Government claimed that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 November 2002 as the amount of the award under the judgment in question was very small.

The applicant submitted in return that he did not apply for withdrawal of the writ of execution and had not been aware of the formal decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. He argued that the amount of the award was significant for him and his family, as he had two small children and a low income at that time.

The Court sees no need to address the parties ’ arguments concerning the applicant ’ s alleged responsibility for non-enforcement, as the complaint is anyway inadmissible for another reason.

Article 35 § 3 of the Convention reads:

“3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that ...

...

(b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.”

First, as to whether the applicant suffered a significant disadvantage, the Court reiterates that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should be minimally severe to warrant consideration by an international court. The assessment of this minimum level is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, taking account of both the applicant ’ s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake. The applicant ’ s subjective feeling about the impact of the alleged violations has to be justifiable on objective grounds (see Korolev v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010).

The Court is conscious that the impact of a pecuniary loss must not be measured in abstract terms; even modest pecuniary damage may be significant in the light of the person ’ s specific condition and the economic situation of the country or region in which he lives (see Korolev , cited above). The Court further recalls that the applicant ’ s behaviour must be consistent with that importance (see Shefer v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 45175/04, §§ 23-26, 13 March 2012).

In the present case the judicial award was of minor nature and amounted to approximately EUR 6. The applicant argued that even that small amount was important for him and his family, as their income was very low at the time of the judgment. However, the applicant did not attach documents confirming his actual income at the relevant time. Moreover, the Court notes that from the date when the writ of execution was submitted to the bailiffs ’ service and until the date when the present application was lodged with the Court four years had elapsed. The applicant did not put forward any argument or information showing that he had taken any steps during that period to, at least, enquire about the progress of the enforcement proceedings in his case. Hence, notwithstanding the applicant ’ s claims before the Court his conduct demonstrates apparent absence of significant interest in the award (see Shefer , cited above, § 25). In the view of the foregoing and the case-law cited above, the Court concludes that the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage.

Second, the Court further observes that the problem of non-enforcement in Russia has been addressed on numerous occasions both in its own judgments and in the decisions of the Committee of Ministers and considers that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and Protocols thereto, does not require an examination of the present application on the merits.

Finally, the Court is of the view that the facts of the present case taken as a whole disclose no denial of justice at the domestic level. The applicant ’ s initial grievances were considered at two levels of jurisdiction and his claims were granted in part (see Veligzhanin and Others v. Ukraine ( dec. ), no. 20653/13, 15 December 2016 ). Furthermore, the applicant did not seek compensation in accordance with the Federal Law № 68-FZ of 30 April 2010 (see the Relevant Domestic Law above) . In the view of the foregoing, the Court considers that this situation does not constitute a denial of justice imputable to the authorities.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the application satisfies the three criteria and must be declared inadmissible and rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Helen Keller              Deputy Registrar President