Communicated on 6 November 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 10936/06 Vladimir Vasilyevich SAZHIN against Russia lodged on 15 January 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Vasilyevich Sazhin , is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Syktyvkar.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 19 April 2004 the Naryan -May Town Court convicted the applicant of attempted theft and sentenced him to a one-year conditional sentence. The court established that, as an employee of an oil-producing company (OOO Kompaniya Polyarnoye Siyaniye , hereinafter “the Company”), the applicant had attempted to steal a manual winch from his employer. The theft would have caused the Company to suffer a pecuniary loss in the amount of 2,031 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 60 euros (EUR)), had the applicant not been caught by security guards whilst trying to remove the winch from the Company ’ s premises.

On 15 June 2004 the Court of the Nenetskiy Autonomous Region upheld the judgment of 19 April 2004 on appeal.

On an unspecified date the Company (which had had victim status in the applicant ’ s criminal proceedings) lodged with the Naryan -Mar Town Court an application for reimbursement of the costs it had incurred in the proceedings. Those costs comprised prosecution witnesses ’ travel expenses and their wages for the period of time that they were participating in the proceedings, as well as the fees of the Company ’ s legal representative in the proceedings. In particular, the Company pointed out that the trial had taken place in the far north of the country, that witnesses had travelled 180 km to get to the trial venue, and that the Company had paid for their air tickets and transport via helicopter in order to get them there. It argued that, under relevant national law, those costs should be reimbursed by either the State or the person who had been convicted.

On 17 March 2005 the Naryan -Mar Town Court granted the Company ’ s application in part. The court observed that the Company had indeed incurred expense in securing the attendance of a number of prosecution witnesses during both the preliminary investigation and the trial. The court then listed in detail all the occasions on which witnesses had been taken to the hearings in the applicant ’ s criminal case, and ordered the State to pay the costs incurred in all the adjourned hearings, where the adjournment was not the applicant ’ s fault. The Naryan -Mar Town Court also ordered the applicant to pay the travel expenses of a certain Mr L. (who had given evidence as a victim on behalf of the Company and had attended court on eight occasions), in addition to those of eight prosecution witnesses who had participated in nine different hearings at various times. The court further ordered the applicant to reimburse the Company for the wages it had paid its six employees in respect of the period that they were off work because of their participation in the trial. It also ordered the applicant to pay the fees of the Company ’ s lawyer. The total costs to be reimbursed by the applicant were RUB 179,785.63 (approximately EUR 5,100). The Naryan -Mar Town Court dismissed the applicant ’ s argument that he was an old age pensioner with a very limited income. It found no reason to exempt him from reimbursing those costs, stating that he was still able to work and received an increased monthly pension, and that the repeated attendance of the prosecution witnesses at court had been secured at his request.

The applicant disagreed with the decision of 17 March 2005 and appealed against it to the Court of the Nenetskiy Autonomous Region. He argued, in particular, that during the preliminary investigation stage it had been unnecessary for the witnesses to travel to meet the investigators, as the investigators could have interviewed them where they lived. The applicant further submitted that he had never insisted on the repeated attendance of prosecution witnesses, and would not have minded if their statements had been read out, therefore their associated travel and miscellaneous expenses should not be attributed to him. He further objected to the fact that he had been put under an obligation to reimburse the Company for the fees charged by its lawyer. The applicant also pointed out that he was an old age pensioner with a student daughter who was a dependant, and that his attempts to gain employment had proved unsuccessful because of his age and his criminal record, with the result that his old age pension of RUB 3,830.71 (approximately EUR 110) per month was the only source of income for both himself and his daughter. The applicant argued that his monthly income was barely sufficient to maintain them, and that now that 20 % of that income was deducted each month by bailiffs to reimburse the Company pursuant to the judgment of 17 March 2005, he and his daughter were in a situation of extreme poverty. He therefore urged the appellate court to absolve him of his obligation to pay the Company ’ s costs.

On 26 July 2005 the Court of the Nenetskiy Autonomous Region examined and dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The court noted that the applicant had committed his offence on the premises of an oil refinery which was located in a remote area and could only be reached by air, and therefore the witnesses ’ attendance could only be secured by transporting them by plane or helicopter. The court further rejected the applicant ’ s argument that he had not sought the attendance of those witnesses, stating that their presence had been necessary to prove the applicant ’ s guilt, as he had not admitted the offence. The court rejected the applicant ’ s argument that he had been obliged to pay for the witnesses ’ repeated attendance at court, stating that the allegation did not correspond with what had actually happened. The appellate court further upheld the first-instance court ’ s finding that the applicant should reimburse the Company the fees it had paid its lawyer. Lastly, the appellate court found no “grounds, including those to which [the applicant had] referred, to exempt [him] from the reimbursement of costs incurred in the proceedings under Article 132 § 6 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.”

In a letter dated 13 October 2014 the bailiff service based in the applicant ’ s local area requested the local pension authority to withhold 20 % of the applicant ’ s monthly pension in respect of the amount due under the aforementioned court judgments until that amount was fully paid.

In a report dated 9 September 2005 a bailiff stated that she had visited the applicant at his home address and had found no property which could be seized in order to honour his debt.

In a letter dated 22 December 2005 the bailiff service notified the applicant that the monthly deduction from his pension would rise to 40%.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 131 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that costs and expenses incurred in criminal proceedings are to be borne by the parties to those proceedings or by the State. Both witnesses and victims are entitled to reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with their participation in criminal proceedings, including expenses incurred in connection with travelling to and staying at locations where they participate in proceedings. They are also entitled to reimbursement of their wages for the period during which they participate in criminal proceedings. A victim is also entitled to reimbursement of expenses relating to legal representation both at trial and in the criminal proceedings as a whole. Article 132 provides that costs and expenses are to be paid by a person who has been convicted or by the State. The State is liable for costs if the guilty party is impecunious. A court can also absolve that party of liability for costs and expenses or reduce the amount to be paid if the financial obligation could significantly affect his or her dependants .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the level of costs which the domestic courts ordered him to pay was too high and put an excessive burden on him. In his submission, the domestic courts failed to take into account his arguments that his pension was his only income and that he had a daughter who was a dependant.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. Alternatively, did the measure in question amount to a control of use of property applied in the general interest, and was it necessary to secure the payment of “other contributions”, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. Did the measure in question impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?