Communicated on 16 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 44387/10 Anastasiya Fedorovna POVARNITSINA against Russia lodged on 8 June 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Anastasiya Fedorovna Povarnitsina , is a Russian national, who was born in 1923 and lives in Yekaterinburg .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 2001 t he applicant entered into a contract under which she had transferred her ownership title to a flat to another party in exchange for the payment of a lump sum in the amount of 3,500 Russian roubles (RUR) and subsequent monthly payments of RUR 400 for the entire period of her life ( life annuity contract , договор пожизненной ренты ).

In 2002 she sued her rent payer seeking the invalidation of the contract in view of the contractor ’ s failure to adjust the monthly payments for the growing minimum wage . In doing so she referred to the contract which envisaged such a possibility in its paragraph 4 and to Article 597 of the Civil Code then in effect which stipulated that monthly payments for life annuities should be at least equal to the minimum wage established by law and , i f so mandated by th e Civil Code, even rise.

By judgment of 13 January 2003 the Ordzhonekidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg dismissed the claim having found that during the relevant period the minimum wage had stayed even . The judgment was upheld on appeal.

The domestic courts held that the legislation then in effect and, in particular, the Federal Law No. 82-FZ “On the Basic Minimum Wage” of 19 June 2000 (the Minimum Wage Act ), envisaged two different rates of the minimum wage depending o n the sphere of application. Thus, to calculat e all kinds of remuneration the rate had been constantly increasing, whereas for other purposes (fines, civil matters in general etc.) it had stagnated since January 2001 ( fixed at RU R 100). The domestic court applied this latter rate to the applicant ’ s case .

The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the disadvantageous discrepancy between the two rates . On 27 November 2008 the Constitutional Court found the Minimum Wage Act as applied in the applicant ’ s case unconstitutional because, combined with the Civil Code, it hindered the recalculation of the monthly payments . In particular the Civil Code tied the payments to the fixed rate of the minimum wage of RUR 100. The Court ruled that the relevant provisions of the Act were to lose force from the moment of introduction of necessary legislative amendments due by 1 July 2009.

The Constitutional Court also ordered that the applicant ’ s judgment was to be reviewed in line with the amendments, whereby paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment read as follows:

“ 2. [The applicant ’ s case is] to be reconsidered on the basis of the legislation amended in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and pursuant to the present judgment. ”

The applicant inquired with Parliament when the law would be adopted, and by a letter of 30 December 2009 the Chairman of the State Duma Committee for the Civil, Criminal and Procedural Legislation informed the applicant that the Russian Government was yet to introduce a draft law to the State Duma.

It appears that, for some unspecified reasons, on 16 December 2010 the Ordzhonekidzevskiy Court quashed its judgment of 13 January 20 03 on account of newly-discovered circumstances and on 20 January 20 11 granted the applicant ’ s claims in full . The court found it possible to rely, among other laws, directly on the Constitutional Court ’ s findings although by then the relevant domestic law provisions still remained intact and no amendments had been introduced .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1 . Constitution al Court Act

Section 96 of the Federal Constitutional Law of 21 July 1994 No. 1 – FKZ “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” (the Constitutional Court Act) as in force at the material time provide d that citizens whose constitutional rights and freedoms were violated by a l egislative act applied or to be applied in a given case we re entitled to submit their complaint to the Constitutional Court.

Under section 79 if the Constitutional Court declare d a l egislative act incompatible with the Constitution such a law bec o me s invalid.

According to section 80, when the Constitutional Court in its judgment found a leg islative act incompatible with the Constitution , the Government had three months as from the date of the publication of the respective judgment to introduce to the State Duma a draft law either replacing or amending the unconstitutional regulation . The above drafts were to be given priority .

2. Minimum Wage Act

For civil obligations linked to the minimum wage, section 5 of the Minimum Wage Act fixed the rate of RUR 100 to be applied as from 1 January 2001.

3. Civil Code

Section 583 of the Civil Code envisages a specific type of a contract under which one party shall transfer property to the other party in exchange of the latter ’ s undertaking to provide for periodical monetary payments or an individual ’ s maintenance in a different form. The latter duty can be established on a permanent basis or for the entire period of life of the recipient ( life annuity contract ) .

Under section 597 of the Civil Code as in force at the material time t he amount of monthly payments under a life annuity contract sh ould be no less than the basic minimum wage established by law and in cases, provided for by section 318 of th e Code, sh ould be subject to increase .

According to section 318 of the Civil Code as in effect at the date of the contract t he amount of payments , payable for an individual ’ s maintenance and in particular in the performance of a life maintenance contracts sh ould be in creased in line with the augmentation of the basic minimum wage .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the non- execution of the judgment of the Constitutional Court , and in particular, the Russian authorities ’ failure to introduce relevant legislative amendments, prevented her civil case from being reviewed to her advantage .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the execution of the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment (see Süßmann v. Germany [GC], no. 20024/92, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV )?

2. Did the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment give rise to a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3 . Which authority was bound to comply with paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment which ordered that “ [ t he applicant ’ s case wa s] to be reconsidered on the basis of the legislation amended in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and pursuant to the [above] judgment ”?

4. Has the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment been executed ? If no, has its non-execution breached Article 6 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? ( see Hornsby v. Greece , 19 March 1997, § 40 , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II ) ?

5. By making the reconsideration of the applicant ’ s civil case conditional on the legislative amendments, did the Constitutional Court impede the applicant ’ s access to court contrary to Article 6?

6. The Government are requested to furnish copies of all judgments given in the applicant ’ s case.