FIRST SECTION

CASE OF BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 24620/02 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

25 January 2007

FINAL

25/04/2007

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision

In the case of Belyayev v. Russia ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 4 January 2007 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 24620/02) 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 , Mr Sergey Grigoryevich Belyayev (“the applicant”) , on 3 June 2002.

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev , Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights .

3 . On 4 January 2006 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Tambov . He is permanently disabled as a result of participation in the emergency response operation s at the Chernobyl nuclear power station.

A . The j udgment of 2 7 April 1999 and its enforcement

5 . On 27 April 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov delivered a judgment in which it ordered the Social Security Service to provide the applicant with a car with hand controls. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 12 May 1999.

6 . It appears that the Social Security Service did not comply with the judgment . F or that reason, on 13 June 2000 the bailiff ' s office issued a charging order in respect of two vehicles purchased by the Social Security Service . On 24 June 2000 the Social Security Service complained against the measure taken by the bailiff ' s office.

7 . On 5 October 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov revoked the charging order. Th at decision was upheld o n 1 November 200 0 by the Tambov Regional Court .

8 . Thereafter the Social Security Service submitted a request to the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov to stay the execution of the judgment. However, on 4 April 2001 the District Court dismissed the request.

9 . On 26 July 2001 the bailiff ' s office discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the writ of execution to the applicant. The bailiff ' s decision , however, was quashed by the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov on 27 September 2001.

10 . Subsequently, the Social Security Service on c e more submitted a request to stay the execution of the judgment until 31 December 2003. On 19 March 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov granted the request.

11 . On 21 June 2004 the applicant purchased a car at his own expense; the Social Security Service reimbursed a portion (66,900 Russian roubles (RUR) ) of the purchase price equivalent to that of a cycle car .

12 . According to the Government, the enforcement proceedings were terminated on 8 July 2004 .

B. The j udgment of 1 June 2001 and its enforcement

13 . On an unspecified date t he applicant brought a civil action, seeking an increase of the monthly rate of the disability compensation he was entitled to receive.

14 . In a judgment of 1 June 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov awarded the applicant RUR 77,826.90 for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2001 and increased the monthly rate to RUR 10, 000 , effective as from 1 June 2001. The judgment became enforceable on 14 June 2001.

15 . In April 2002 the Social Security Service paid RUR 77,826.90 to the applicant.

16 . On 1 January 2003 the Social Security Service started to make monthly disability payments in the amount of RUR 10,000.

17 . On 23 March 2003 the applicant received RUR 140,243 in arrears on account of the State ' s failure to pay, in 2001 and 2002, the disability compensation in the amount determined in the judgment of 1 June 2001.

C . The j udgment debt of 27 April 2002 and its enforcement

18 . On 8 October 2001 the applicant brought an action seeking the adjustment of the unpaid amount awarded to him on 1 June 2001 to take account of inflation.

19 . On 27 April 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov granted the applicant ' s claim and award ed him RUR 171,181.36. The judgment became enforceable on 8 May 2002.

20 . On 1 April 2003 the Social Security Service requested the court to clarify the judgment of 27 April 2002 and to reduce the amount awarded .

21 . On 9 April 2003 the District Court reduced the award to RUR 93,354.46.

22 . The judgment of 27 April 2002 , as amended on 9 April 2003 , was enforced on 13 May 2003 .

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1

23 . The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment s of 27 April 1999 , 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002 had not been enforced in good time . The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows :

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... 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...”

A. Admissibility

24 . The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B . Merits

1. Concerning the enforcement of the judgment of 27 April 1999

25 . The Government acknowledged that the judgment of 27 April 1999 had not been enforced. They further conceded that the applicant ' s rights set out in Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment .

26 . The applicant agreed and maintained his claims.

27 . The Court observes that the judgment has remained unenforced to date, that is for more than seven years and five months. The Court further notes that the Government did not rely o n any argument which could justify such a lengthy delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 27 April 1999.

28 . The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, for example, Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III).

29 . Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that by failing for years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant ' s favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of his right to a court and prevented him from obtaining the car he had legitimately expected to receive. The fact that in June 2004 the applicant received part of the purchase price of the car cannot mitigate the negative effect of such a lengthy period of non-enforcement.

30 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 .

2 . Concerning the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002

31 . The Government submitted that the judgment of 1 June 2001 had been enforced by 2 3 March 2003 and that the judgment of 27 April 2002 had been enforced on 13 May 2003. They admitted that the delayed enforcement of the judgments constituted a violation of the applicant ' s rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. T he Government , however, claimed that the judgments had been enforced within a “reasonable time”.

32 . The applicant maintained his claims. He did not dispute that the judgments had been enforced . However , he considered that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been excessive.

33 . The Court reiterates that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see, among other authorities, Gr i shchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004). However, the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the “right to a court” enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999 ‑ V). The Court has previously found that the length of enforcement proceedings exceeding eleven months where the award concerned the payment of a disability compensation to the applicant was not “ reasonable ” (see Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia , no. 38305/02, § 35 , 17 March 2005 ).

34 . Turning to the facts of the present case , the Court observes that even though the authorities recognised in substance th at the delay in the execution of the judgment of 1 June 2001 amounted to a violation of the applicant ' s rights and adjusted the amount to be paid to him to take account of inflation , the full payment of the judgment debt was delayed for another year. The Court further notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of justifying the delay in the enforcement proceedings.

35 . The Court finds that the authorities ' failure to repay for a considerable period of time the disability compensation to the applicant in accordance with the judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002 impaired the essence of his “right to a court” and prevented him , during this period, from receiving the money he had legitimately expected to receive.

36 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention a nd Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

II . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

37 . The applicant further complained about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the continued non-enforcement of the judgment s in his favour. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

A. Admissibility

38 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

39 . The Gove rnment did not address the issue in their observations.

40 . The applicant maintained his claims .

41 . The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for a breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that proceedings should not exceed a “reasonable time” (see KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI) , and that the execution of a judgment is an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Hornsby v. Greece , judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II, § 40).

42 . The Court has previously ruled in cases where the domestic law did not provide for a mechanism to compel the State to repay a judgment debt that the applicants did not have an effective remedy that could have expedited the enforcement of a judgment against a State authority (see, for example, Voytenko v. Ukraine , no. 18966/02, 29 June 2004 , §§ 30-31 and 46-48).

43 . Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have provided the applicant with adequate redress for the continued non-enforcement of the judgment s in his favour . Nor can the Court discern any basis in the evidence submitted by the parties to conclude otherwise.

44 . Accordingly, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained redress for a violation of his right to have the judgment s enforced .

III . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

45 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

1. Pecuniary damage

46 . The applicant claimed RUR 16,879.91 in respect of the pecuniary damage resulting from the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 April 1999 . In particular, he submitted that when reimbursing him the cost of the car he had purchased, the Social Security Service had paid him only RUR 66,900 , that is the price of a cycle car, whereas the price of a car with hand controls was RUR 80 ,200. The outstanding amount of RUR 13 ,300 should be adjusted to take account of inflation. Accordingly, the damage amount ed to RUR 16,879.91 , based on the inflation rate calculated by the State Statistics Service . He further claimed RUR 36,858.62 in respect of the pecuniary damage resulting from the delayed enforcement of the judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002.

47 . The Government did not submit any comments.

48 . The Court notes that the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim for the pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment s of 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002. It therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court accepts the applicant ' s calculations as regards the damage resulting from the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 April 1999 and awards him RUR 16,879.91 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

2. Non-p ecuniary damage

49 . The applicant claimed 14,847 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

50 . The Government did not submit any comments.

51 . The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered a certain amount of distress and frustration as a result of the State authorities ' failure to enforce , in good time, the judgment s in his favour and to provide a remedy whereby he could have obtained redress for the delayed enforcement. However, the amount claimed appears excessive. Taking into account the relevant elements, such as the nature of the award at stake in the present case and the length of the enforcement proceedings , and m aking its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 4,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount .

C . Costs and expenses

52 . The applicant also claimed RUR 6,412.20 for costs and expenses before the Court , including RUR 5,700 for translation of documents and RUR 712.20 for postal expenses .

53 . The Government did not comment.

54 . According to the Court ' s case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant RUR 6,412.20 for costs and expenses , plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount .

C. Default interest

55 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Dec lares the application admissible ;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 April 1999 ;

3 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the belated enforcement of the judgments of 1 June 2001 and 27 April 2002 ;

4 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;

5 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accord ance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts :

( i ) RUR 16,879.91 ( sixteen thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine roubles and ninety-one kopecks) in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 4,900 ( four thousand nine hundred euro s ) in respect of non-pecuniary damage , to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement ;

(iii) RUR 6,412.20 ( six thousand four hundred and twelve roubles and twenty kopecks ) in respect of costs and expenses ;

(iv) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicant ' s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 January 2007 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President