Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GASANOV AND NIKULIN v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 16941/07 and 59053/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 February 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gasanovand Nikulinv. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
JolienSchukking, judges,
and LivTigerstedtActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in respect of application no. 16941/07 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see TahsinAcar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
7. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in theirfavour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which 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 13
“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.”
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 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.”
8. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
9. In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, no. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having regard to the nature of the judicial awards in the applicants’ favour (see the appended table for details of court orders), the Court considers that the applicants had, by virtue of these judgments, a “legitimate expectation” to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
13. The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non‑enforcement. The Court has already noted the existence of a new domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced in the wake of the pilot judgment, which enables those concerned to seek compensation for damage sustained as a result of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 35555/05 and 6 others, 2 May 2017). Even though the remedy was – or still is – available to the applicants, the Court reiterates that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court, to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 230).
14. However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, no. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011). This ruling is without prejudice to the Court’s future assessment of the new remedy.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 187-200, 1 July 2014), and in view of the fact that the applicant, Mr Gasanov (application no. 16941/07) did not submit any just satisfaction claims, the Court does not make any award to Mr Gasanov and considers it reasonable to award the second applicant, Mr Nikulin (application no. 59053/11), the sum indicated in the appended table.
17. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 16941/07 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions admissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions;
5. Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
6. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, MrNikulin (application no. 59053/11), within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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.
8. Dismisses the remainder of Mr Nikulin’s (application no. 59053/11) claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
LivTigerstedt AlenaPoláčková
ActingDeputyRegistrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
| No. | Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Date of birth |
Relevant domestic decision | Start date of non‑enforcement period | End date of non‑enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings |
Domestic order | Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 16941/07 08/02/2007 |
Mazhid Dzhanbulatovich Gasanov 27/03/1958 |
Makhachkala Garrison Military Court, 18/09/2000 | 29/11/2000 | pending More than 18 years and 1 month and 10 days |
to provide with additional rest days | 0 |
| 2. | 59053/11 03/09/2011 |
Sergey Aleksandrovich Nikulin 04/03/1969 |
Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, 03/10/2007 | 24/01/2008 | pending More than 10 years and 11 months and 15 days |
“… the [Ministry of Defence] … to provide [the applicant] … with housing …” | 7,800 |
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply