EUCP

Cases, Materials and News on European Civil Procedure

European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) – Judgment 19 December 2017 – Sashchenko v. Russia – lack of specific amounts in the text of the judgment shall not be considered per se as an obstacle to enforcement – unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach Article 6 – most appropriate form of redress in respect of the violations found would be to put the applicants as far as possible in the position they would have been if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded – Article 41

On 19 December 2017 the ECtHR (Third Section) issued a decision in the case of Sashchenko v. Russia on application n. 50877/06.

Facts of the case: the applicant tried to enforce final domestic judgment against the State

On 25 October 2002 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison (“the Military Court”) ordered, inter alia, the head of the respondent military institute to re-calculate the period of the applicant’s service, applying the favourable terms of such calculation for a specified period of service. The applicant was also awarded some additional allowances and payments for certain periods. The judgment came into force on 5 November 2002. On 3 March 2003 the Military Court issued a writ of execution and on 4 August 2003 the bailiffs’ service instituted the enforcement proceedings. On 19 September 2003 the enforcement proceedings were terminated and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant, as the debt could not be recovered.

On 13 November 2003 the head of the respondent military institute issued Order No. 463 requiring to make payments in accordance with the judgment of 25 October 2002. On 4 February 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. On 18 May 2005 the writ was returned to the applicant on the ground that the judgment obliged an official of an organisation to take certain actions rather than ordered to recover payments from a budgetary organisation. Thus, the writ of execution was to be submitted to the bailiffs’ service.

On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service. On 14 April 2006 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant from the bailiffs’ service without enforcement. The bailiffs explained that for the applicant to be able to receive the payments under the judgment, he should obtain a writ of execution stating the sum of the debt to be recovered. After that, the writ could be submitted to the Federal Treasury for enforcement. In 2005 in accordance with Order No. 463, the defendant military institute calculated the amounts due to the applicant as follows: the compensation for the supplementary ration for the period from October 1998 until March 2000 –11,341.85 Russian roubles (RUB); allowance for special regime of the service in 1998-2002 – RUB 2,720.1; and special allowance – RUB 327,000. In total: RUB 341,061.95.

Judgement of the ECtHR
1) Article 6: delayed enforcement of the final domestic judgments
A. Relevant rules

The Court reiterated that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia). It further reiterated that a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Metaxas v. Greece).

The Court also held that the complexity of the domestic enforcement procedure or of the State budgetary system cannot relieve the State of its obligation under the Convention to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time. At the same time, the Court has accepted that a successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt (see Shvedov v. Russia). The creditor’s uncooperative behaviour may be an obstacle to timely enforcement of a judgment, thus alleviating the authorities’ responsibility for delays (see Belayev v. Russia).

 

B. Facts of the case

The Court noted that the applicant tried to recover the debt in his favour.

As to the argument about the lack of specific amounts in the text of the judgment, the Court noted that as in some previous similar cases the wording of the judgment of 25 October 2002 was sufficiently clear and specific to be enforceable. The text of the judgment specified the type of the awarded allowances, the period and method of calculation. Therefore, the amounts due to the applicant could easily be calculated (see Bulgakova v. Russia).

C. Conclusion

The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases raising similar issues to the ones in the present case and it found no reason for reaching a different conclusion in the present case.

2) Article 41: redress – judgment debt and non-pecuniary damages
A. Relevant rules

The Court reiterated 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 they would have been if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium). It further reiterated its constant approach that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value (see, mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia).

B. Facts of the case and conclusion

The Court accepted the applicant’s calculation of the judgment debt and awards the equivalent in euros of the amount claimed in full. Further, as regards the method used to calculate the loss of value of the judgment debt, and in the absence of the Government’s objection in this respect, the Court accepted the method suggested by the applicant.

As to the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court accepted that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment in his favour in good time. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

Full text decision

Updated: January 10, 2018 — 9:01 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

EUCP © 2016 Frontier Theme