Судебное дело "Горская против России "
02.08.2010
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 19651/07 Gorskaya v. Russia 14 July 2010 Dear Sir, With regard to your letter dated 14 June 2010 on behalf of Mrs Gorskaya I would like to inform you the following. Having analyzed the Declaration of the Russian authorities dated 26 May 2010, the applicant finds it impossible to accept this Declaration for the following grounds. 1. On 24 June 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevskyi district court of Ufa delivered the judgment in the applicant's favour and awarded her RUB 34 427 (salary) and RUB 300 (non-pecuniary damage). As for 2 years the judgment wasn't enforced Mrs Gorskaya applied to the court to redress the damage. On 2 December 2003 the Peace Justice of the Court Circuit of the Kirovskyi District of Ufa delivered the default judgment to redress the damage of RUB 35 975 and compensate RUB 3 000 as the non-pecuniary damage. On 29 March 2004 the court of appeal upheld the judgment of 2 December 2003. The applicant immediately submitted the order of enforcement to the Ministry of Finance On 23 April 2004 the order was returned due to the wrong spelling of the applicant's name. On 28 April 2004 the order of enforcement was sent by the applicant to the Ministry of Finance. On 8 September 2004 the default judgment of 2 December 2003 and the decision of the court of appeal of 29 March 2004 were abolished by the Supreme Court, the case was returned for a new consideration. On 6 October 2004 the Ministry of Finance returned the order of enforcement which was not being enforced for 5 months in violation of Section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997 (a judgment must be enforced within two months). On 21 October 2004 the Peace Justice delivered the judgment in the applicant's favour. On 16 June 2005 the judgment of 21 October 2004 was upheld. On 5 July 2005 the court issued the order of enforcement. On 14 July 2005 the applicant sent the order to the Ministry of Finance. On 27 July 2005 the Ministry received the order and registered it. Only after submission of the complaint of 11 May 2006 to the General Prosecutor's Office, on 7 June 2006 the applicant received the reply from the Ministry of Finance which returned the order of enforcement. On 7 August 2006 the Ordzhonikidzevskyi district court of Ufa delivered the judgment and found the inaction of the Ministry of Finance illegal but found that the return of the order was legal due to the court's mistake. On 3 October 2006 the judgment of 7 August 2006 was upheld. On 13 November 2006 the applicant submitted the application on correcting the mistake in the order of enforcement to the Peace Justice. On 15 November 2006 the order of enforcement was changed. On 11 July 2007 the Peace Justice delivered the judgment in the applicant's favour and obliged the Ministry of Finance to pay Mrs Gorskaya RUB 6 808, 78. The Russian authorities transferred the main debt (RUB 40821,98) to the applicant's account only on 7 May 2007, that is in fact in 8 years. So the awarded money received in 1999 (after the first judgment in the applicant's favour) would have more value than the money obtained in 2007. Such long delay in enforcement was due to the state authorities (courts, Ministry of Finance) and not the applicant. It cannot but cause the applicant the non-pecuniary damage. Mrs Gorskaya claimed EUR 4 000. The Russian authorities offer to pay __________. The applicant considers this sum inadequate to her suffering. 2. In the judgment Burdov v. Russia (No. 2) the Court recalls that Article 46 of the Convention, as interpreted in the light of Article 1, imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to implement, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, appropriate general and/or individual measures to secure the right of the applicant which the Court found to be violated. Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, S: 249, ECHR 2000 VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, S: 120, ECHR 2002 VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, S: 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, S: 134, ECHR 2008 ...). In the judgment of the court of appeal dated 24 June 2008 the court found that the applicant did not receive the full sum of indexation and obliged the Ministry of Finance to pay the indexation (RUR 5 964, 28), costs and expenses (RUR 360), non-pecuniary damage (RUR 50000). For the moment Mrs Gorskay has not received RUR 7476,09 with regard to indexation (see Attachment). This judgment has not been still received. It confirms that the violation of the applicant's rights has continued. 3. The Russian Federation invites the Court to accept its Declaration as "any other reason" justifying the striking out of the case of Mrs Gorskaya. But in the applicant's opinion the partial payment of the debt in 2007-2008 after the applicant submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights cannot be considered as any other reason" justifying the striking out of the case. Therefore, we request the Court not to strike the case Gorskaya v. Russia out of the list of cases. Legal representative before the European Court of Human Rights Ludmila Churkina___________________
Добавить комментарий:
