4874/03

FIRST SECTION     CASE OF PITELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA     (Application no. 4874/03)     JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   14 June 2007       FINAL     14/09/2007     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pitelin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:  Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,  Mr A. Kovler,  Mrs E. Steiner,  Mr K. Hajiyev,  Mr D. Spielmann,  Mr S.E. Jebens,  Mr G. Malinverni, judges, and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application (no. 4874/03) 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 four Russian nationals, whose names are listed in the schedule, on 28 January 2003. 2.  The applicants were represented by Ms N. Mizhayeva, a lawyer practising in Astrakhan. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.  On 6 December 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS 4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Astrakhan in the Astrakhan Region. They are employees of a private airline company, OAO “Aviakompaniya 'Astrakhanskiye Avialinii'”. 5.  On the dates set out in the schedule the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit of the Sovetskiy District of Astrakhan accepted the applicants' actions against their employer. The employer was to pay them certain amounts in wage arrears and work-related benefits. The judgments were not appealed against and became final. 6.  On an unspecified date the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court lodged an application seeking a supervisory review of the judgments made in the applicants' favour. 7.  On 14 August 2002 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments and remitted the cases for re-examination. The Presidium noted that the Justice of the Peace had erred in application of the “material and procedural law”. 8.  On 3 October 2002 the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit dismissed the applicants' actions in full. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. THE LAW I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR 9.  The applicants complained that the quashing of the final judgments made in their favour violated their “right to a court” and their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions 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 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...” A.  Submissions by the parties 10.  The Government argued that the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour with a view to correcting the judicial error committed by the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit. 11.  The applicants averred that the quashing of the final judgments had irremediably impaired the principle of legal certainty and had deprived them of the right to receive money they had been entitled to receive. B.  The Court's assessment 1.  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (a)  Admissibility 12.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. (b)  Merits 13.  The Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which declares, in its relevant part, the rule of law to be part of the common heritage of the Contracting States. One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumărescu v. Romania, judgment of 28 October 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-VII, § 61). 14.  This principle insists that no party is entitled to seek re-opening of the proceedings merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. Higher courts' power to quash or alter binding and enforceable judicial decisions should be exercised for correction of fundamental defects. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination. Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X; and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004). 15.  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. In this way it embodies the “right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final and binding judicial decision to be quashed by a higher court on an application made by a State official whose power to lodge such an application is not subject to any time-limit, with the result that the judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely (see Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 54-56). 16.  The Court observes that on the dates set out in the schedule the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit accepted the applicants' actions and granted them sums of money representing wage arrears and work-related benefits. The judgments were not appealed against and became binding and enforceable. On 14 August 2002 that judgments were quashed by way of supervisory review initiated by the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court who was a State official but not a party to the proceedings (see paragraph 6 above). 17.  The Court has found a violation of an applicant's “right to a court” guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in many cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and binding, was subsequently quashed by a higher court on an application by a State official whose power to intervene was not subject to any time-limit (see Roseltrans v. Russia, no. 60974/00, §§ 27-28, 21 July 2005; Volkova v. Russia, no. 48758/99, §§ 34-36, 5 April 2005; and Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51-56). 18.  Having examined the materials submitted to it, the Court observes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.  Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the judgments given in the applicants' cases by way of supervisory-review proceedings. 2.  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (a)  Admissibility 19.  The Court observes that the applicants' complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. (b)   Merits 20.  The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment constitutes the judgment beneficiary's “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005). 21.  The Court observes that the final and enforceable judgments by which the applicants had been awarded certain sums of money were quashed on a supervisory review on 14 August 2002. The applicants' claims were sent for re-consideration, following which the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit dismissed them in full. Thus, the applicants were prevented from receiving the initial awards through no fault of their own. The quashing of the enforceable judgments frustrated the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decisions and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the money they had legitimately expected to receive. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgments, as listed in the schedule, by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on the applicants and was incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article. II.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 22.  Without invoking any Convention provision, the applicants complained that the proceedings after the supervisory review of 14 August 2002 had been unfair as the Justice of the Peace had misinterpreted the domestic law, had incorrectly assessed the facts and had not examined their arguments in detail and that other employees had been awarded bigger awards in the similar situations. 23.  The Court notes that the applicants did not appeal against the first-instance judgment of 3 October 2002 to a higher-instance court in order to obtain redress in this respect. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 24.  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.” A.  Damage 25.  The applicants claimed sums representing judgment awards as listed in the schedule in respect of pecuniary damage. They further claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 26.  The Government argued that there was no causal link between the alleged violation and the pecuniary damage claimed. They further submitted that the claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage were unreasonable and excessive. 27.  As regards the claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court, having regard to the nature of the violation found, considers it appropriate to award the applicants the sums which they would have received had the judgments in their favour not been quashed (see the schedule), plus any tax that may be chargeable (cf. Stetsenko v. Russia, no. 878/03, § 69, 5 October 2006). 28.  The Court further considers that the applicants suffered distress and frustration resulting from the quashing of the judicial decisions by way of supervisory-review proceedings. Nevertheless, the amounts claimed are excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts. B.  Costs and expenses 29.  The applicants did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating to the proceedings before the domestic courts or the Convention organs and this is not a matter which the Court will examine on its own motion (see Motière v. France, no. 39615/98, § 26, 5 December 2000). C.  Default interest 30.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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.  Declares the complaint concerning the quashing of the final judgments issued in the applicants' favour admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;   2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;   3.  Holds (a)  that the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, shall pay the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage the awards made under the judgments in their favour as listed in the schedule, plus any tax that may be chargeable; (b) that the respondent State shall pay each of the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the 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;   4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis  Registrar President                                                 SCHEDULE NAME OF THE APPLICANT YEAR OF BIRTH DATE OF THE JUDGMENT AWARDS UNDER THE JUDGMENT (RUR) Anatoliy Dmitriyevich Pitelin 8 February 2002 115,538  Aleksandr Nikolayevich Afanasyev 8 February 2002 68,708.11  Yuriy Vasilyevich Matyunin 25 January 2002 64,875    Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Gomzyakov 14 February 2002 68,251.60