Last Updated on December 7, 2021 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KONSTANTINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 15364/11 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
7 December 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Konstantinov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in three applications (nos. 15364/11, 49623/11 and 55790/11) 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 three Russian nationals. Their details and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the appended table.
2. In a judgment delivered on 22 October 2019 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of all applicants on account of non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour by the authorities and insufficient compensation granted in that respect under the Compensation Act (Konstantinov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 15364/11 and 2 Others, §§ 11-14, 22 October 2019).
3. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicants sought various sums by way of just satisfaction.
4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the parties to notify the Court within six months of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 20 and point 5 of the operative part).
5. The applicants and the Government each filed observations, but failed to reach an agreement.
THE LAW
6. 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.”
I. Damage
A. Parties’ submissions
7. The applicants claimed various sums for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage indicated in the appended table. In particular, the applicant in case no. 15364/11 claimed the amount of the unenforced award and 20,000 euros (EUR) for losses, submitting a consumer loan agreement for 500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (about EUR 12,350). The applicants in cases nos. 49623/11 and 55790/11 claimed the amount of the original awards index-linked on the basis of the subsistence minimum increase between 2005 (when the unenforced judgments became final) and in 2015 (when they submitted their claims), referring to inflation losses. They supported their claims with the relevant decrees of the regional government on the subsistence minimum.
8. The Government objected to the claims, stating that the applicants had not sustained any pecuniary damage but did not refute the fact that all three judgments had remained unenforced. They further contended that the sums calculated by the applicants in cases nos. 49623/11 and 55790/11 had not been awarded to them by any domestic judgment. As for non-pecuniary damage, the Government referred to the compensation awarded at the domestic level (see appended table) as being sufficient redress in compliance with the Court’s case law.
B. The Court’s assessment
9. The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of the violations found would be to put the applicants as far as possible in the position in which they would have been if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see, mutatis mutandis, Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A no. 85). In particular, as regards non-enforcement cases, the adequacy of compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005, with further references). The Court has frequently accepted applicants’ claims for compensation for damage arising from inflation losses during prolonged failure to pay judgment debts (see, among many other authorities, Kulkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 25114/03 and 9 others, § 64, 8 January 2009).
10. The applicants in cases nos. 49623/11 and 55790/11 calculated their pecuniary damage based on the official source of information in respect of the increase of the subsistence minimum level and specifying the exact multiplier corresponding to this increase (see, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, § 33, 25 October 2011). At the same time, the Government did not suggest an alternative method of calculation and the Court considers that the applicants’ claims do not appear unreasonable in view of the length of the delay in enforcement. In these circumstances the Court accepts the applicants’ calculations and awards them compensation for pecuniary damage as claimed (see appended table).
11. As regards the claim in case no. 15364/11, the Court observes that the applicant did not submit any calculation of his losses in the amount of EUR 20,000. The loan agreement provided by him does not contain any direct link with the unenforced judgment. The Court therefore dismisses this part of the claim as unsubstantiated and considers it appropriate to award the above applicant the amount of the judgment debt as claimed.
12. As regards non-pecuniary damage, in non-enforcement cases the Court’s awards for this type of damage are, in principle, directly proportionate to the period during which a binding and enforceable judgment remained unenforced (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 154, ECHR 2009). In the present case the delays in enforcement of domestic judgments range between eleven and sixteen years, and during this time the applicants were prevented from receiving the amounts they had legitimately expected to receive under the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour. The Court has already ruled that the amounts awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts under the Compensation Act were unreasonably low (see Konstantinov and Others, cited above, § 11, and paragraph 2 above) and thus rejects the Government’s argument under this head. Therefore, ruling on an equitable basis and applying the ne ultra petita principle, it awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table and rejects the remainder of their claims.
13. 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.
II. Costs and expenses
14. The applicant in case no. 15364/11 did not submit any claims for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court will not make any award under this head.
15. The applicants in cases nos. 49623/11 and 55790/11 each claimed 300 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. The Government disputed the claim as ill‑founded. The Court notes that the claims are not supported by any documents and accordingly rejects them in full.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Alena Poláčková
Deputy Registrar President
_________
APPENDIX
| No. | Application no. Lodged on |
Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence |
Domestic awards (court, date of becoming final, amount awarded) | Compensation under the Compensation Act (court, date of becoming final, amount awarded, enforcement) | Claims for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage | Amounts awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage |
| 1. | 15364/11 07/02/2011 |
Mikhail Vasilyevich KONSTANTINOV 1956 Novovoronezh |
Novovoronezh Town Court 12/04/2010 RUB 614,835.21 |
Voronezh Regional Court 28/07/2011 RUB 10,000 (enforced) |
RUB 614,835.21 (EUR 7,200) and EUR 20,000 (pecuniary damage) EUR 5,000 (non‑pecuniary damage) |
EUR 7,200 (seven thousand two hundred euros) (pecuniary damage) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) (non‑pecuniary damage) |
| 2. | 49623/11 18/07/2011 |
Radimkhan Yunusovna KOKURKHOYEVA 1959 Sunzha |
Sunzhenskiy District Court of Ingushetia 21/06/2005 RUB 84,409.40 |
Supreme Court of Ingushetia 17/06/2011 RUB 3,000 (non-enforced) |
RUB 319,741 (EUR 3,700) (pecuniary damage), EUR 13,000 (non‑pecuniary damage) |
EUR 3,700 (three thousand seven hundred euros) (pecuniary damage) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) (non‑pecuniary damage) |
| 3. | 55790/11 11/08/2011 |
Vakhit Khatiyevich MARKHIYEV 1953 Sunzha |
Justice of the Peace of Judicial Circuit no. 11 of Ingushetia 18/06/2005 RUB 76,106.24 |
Supreme Court of Ingushetia 18/07/2011 RUB 3,000 (non-enforced) |
RUB 288,289 (EUR 3,400) (pecuniary damage), EUR 13,000 (non‑pecuniary damage) |
EUR 3,400 (three thousand four hundred euros) (pecuniary damage) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) (non-pecuniary damage) |
Leave a Reply