CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF APOSTOL v. GEORGIA (Application no. 40765/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 November 2006 FINAL 28/02/2007 1 APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT In the case of Apostol v. Georgia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, András Baka, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Elisabet Fura-Sandström, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 40765/02) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Georgian national, Mr Leonid Tikhonovich Apostol (“the applicant”), on 25 October 2002. 2. The applicant was granted leave, in accordance with Rule 34 § 3 (a) and Rule 36 § 2 in fine of the Rules of Court, to present his own case. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Papuashvili of the Ministry of Justice. 3. On 25 August 2005 the Court decided to give notice to the respondent Government of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 November 2001. On the same date, the Court decided to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 4. The Government filed their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application (Rule 54A). The applicant did not produce any observations in reply. On 4 January 2006, however, he reiterated his intention to pursue the proceedings. 5. On 31 January 2006 the Court decided to proceed with the examination of the application as the case file stood. APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 2 THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Batumi, Georgia. A. First set of proceedings 7. The applicant brought a civil action against a private person. On 21 November 2001 the Batumi City Court allowed his claim and ordered the debtor to pay him arrears in the amount of 2,000 United States dollars (1,595 euros (EUR)1) plus 100 Georgian laris ((GEL) – EUR 43.752) for the costs and expenses associated with the court proceedings. The judgment was never appealed against and became binding. 8. Since the debtor refused to abide by the judgment, the applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic (“the AAR”), requesting the initiation of enforcement proceedings. 9. In a letter of 27 November 2002, the Ministry informed the applicant that, pursuant to section 26 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act, he was to bear the “preliminary expenses associated with enforcement measures”. The letter, however, did not specify which measures were envisaged and what their costs were. 10. Being in receipt of only a monthly pension of GEL 45 (EUR 193) at the material time, the applicant was unable to pay for the initiation of enforcement proceedings. He appealed instead to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor’s Office of the AAR, requesting the initiation of criminal proceedings against the debtor (Article 381 of the Criminal Code) and the enforcement of the judgment, but to no avail. The authorities in question replied that it was beyond their competence to interfere with the judicial process. 11. Three years later, on 20 January 2004, the applicant applied to the Ajarian Council of Ministers (the executive of the AAR). Explaining that, owing to his lack of means, he could not bear the expenses in advance, the applicant expressed his willingness to pay an enforcement fee after receiving the judgment debt. 12. In its reply of 12 March 2004, the Ajarian Ministry of Justice noted that the debtor’s whereabouts were unknown. The Ministry reiterated that the non-payment of the preliminary expenses constituted “an impediment to the enforcement of the judgment”; provided that the applicant had covered the necessary expenses in advance, the bailiff would identify the debtor’s 1. Exchange rate on 29 June 2006. 2. Idem. 3. Idem. 3 APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT assets, seize them and put them up for auction. As to the enforcement fee of 7% of the judgment debt, the Ministry stated that this could be paid by the applicant after enforcement (section 113 (1) of the Enforcement Proceedings Act). 13. As a result of the non-payment of the preliminary expenses, the judgment of 21 November 2001 still remains unenforced. B. Second set of proceedings 14. The applicant was to inherit the apartment of his deceased brother, where relatives of his brother’s wife were dwelling. Before establishing his rights as an heir, the court satisfied the applicant’s request for interim measures by ordering the appropriate bailiff to attach the impugned apartment and make an inventory of the movable assets inside. 15. After being recognised as the heir, the applicant brought a civil action against the relatives, claiming that they had misappropriated household belongings. After a series of remittals, on 3 September 2002 the Batumi City Court partly satisfied the applicant’s claim by ordering the respondents to return some of the belongings thus claimed. 16. According to the case file, the judgment of 3 September 2002 was received by the applicant on 24 September 2002 (the receipt form being written in Georgian, a language not understood by the applicant). However, the applicant contends that he received the judgment on 3 October 2002, along with the relevant receipt form in Russian. 17. On 28 October 2002 the applicant appealed against the judgment, and on 3 December 2002 he paid GEL 50 (EUR 21.881) in court fees. On 15 November 2002, taking into consideration the receipt form of 24 September 2002, the appellate court dismissed the appeal as time-barred. On an unspecified date the court fees were returned to the applicant. 18. The applicant applied to different judicial and administrative authorities, requesting an expert report on the authenticity of the receipt form dated 24 September 2002, but to no avail. C. Third set of proceedings 19. In the course of divorce proceedings, the Batumi City Court established on 8 June 2001 that the two-room apartment where the applicant and his wife had been residing during their marriage was their common matrimonial property. Following the divorce, the court entitled the applicant’s former wife to a room in the disputed apartment. The applicant appealed against this decision, complaining, among other issues, that the case had been examined in his absence. On 16 August 2001 the appellate 1. Exchange rate on 29 June 2006. APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 4 court, noting that the applicant’s representative had attended the hearing before the City Court, dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the appellate court’s judgment on 1 February 2002. 20. In the course of the enforcement of the decision of 8 June 2001, the applicant’s aunt was evicted from the room to which the applicant’s former spouse was entitled. D. Fourth set of proceedings 21. In a decision of 28 October 1998, the Batumi City Court recognised the applicant as a victim of political repression and ordered his judicial rehabilitation. By virtue of a decree of the President of Georgia dated 1 January 1998, rehabilitated citizens of Georgia are entitled to certain welfare benefits. The applicant applied to different administrative authorities, claiming those benefits, but to no avail. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 22. The relevant provisions of the Georgian Constitution read: Article 42 § 1 “Every person has the right to apply to a court for protection of his or her rights and freedoms.” Article 89 § 1 (f) “The Constitutional Court of Georgia shall, ... on the basis of a citizen’s complaint, examine the compatibility of normative acts with Chapter II of the Constitution.” The Second Chapter, consisting of Articles 12 to 47, lists human rights and freedoms. 23. The Constitutional Court Act of 31 January 1996, as in force at the material time, provides, in so far as relevant: Section 1 “The Constitutional Court of Georgia (hereinafter the Constitutional Court) is the body of constitutional supervision, which shall guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution of Georgia, constitutional justice, and the protection of the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals.” Section 19(1)(e) “On the basis of a constitutional complaint or application, the Constitutional Court shall be competent to examine and decide ... upon the issue of the constitutionality of normative acts with respect to Chapter II of the Constitution.” 5 APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT Section 20 “The declaration of a statute or another normative act as unconstitutional shall not result in the quashing of judicial decisions and judgments already given on the basis of the impugned act. It shall only suspend enforcement proceedings in accordance with procedural legislation.” Section 39(1) (as amended on 12 February 2002) “The right to lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court in order to challenge the constitutionality of a normative act or the provisions thereof ... shall be vested in: (a) Georgian nationals, other physical persons residing in Georgia and Georgian legal entities, if they consider that their rights as envisaged by Chapter II of the Constitution have been or might be directly breached; (b) the Public Defender, if the latter considers that there has been a violation of the human rights and freedoms set forth in Chapter II of the Constitution.” 24. The Constitutional Proceedings Act of 21 March 1996, as in force at the material time, provides, in so far as relevant: Section 18(e) “A constitutional complaint or application shall be deemed inadmissible if: ... (e) the disputed issue is not governed by the Constitution.” 25. The Enforcement Proceedings Act of 16 April 1999 (“the Enforcement Act”), as in force at the material time, reads, in so far as relevant: Section 5(1): The Enforcement Office “Bailiffs at enforcement offices [of the Ministry of Justice] shall be responsible for the enforcement of the decisions provided for hereunder.” Section 10(1): Expenses relating to enforcement “The amount of the expenses relating to enforcement shall be calculated by the bailiff, and may be reviewed during the enforcement process.” Section 11: Enforcement of urgent judgments by bailiffs “Bailiffs are entitled to use funds allocated from the State budget ... in order to enforce urgent judgments as listed in Article 268 § 1 (a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure ...” Section 17(1) and (5): The bailiff’s rights and obligations “Requests by bailiffs in the course of their duties shall be equally binding on any natural person or legal entity, irrespective of their hierarchical or legal and administrative status. APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 6 Bailiffs shall resort to any lawful measures available in order to secure the speedy and effective enforcement of decisions, to explain to parties their rights and responsibilities, and to assist in the protection of their rights and legal interests.” Section 26 (as amended on 5 December 2000): Initiation of enforcement proceedings “Bailiffs shall initiate enforcement proceedings upon receipt of the writ of enforcement and a written application from the creditor. Bailiffs are entitled to refuse to enforce a judgment in the event of non-payment by the creditor of the preliminary expenses provided for by this Act.” Section 38(1): Debtor’s liability to cover the expenses “Expenses relating to enforcement shall be borne by the debtor. They shall be recovered along with the debt.” Section 39(1) and (2): Expenses related to the enforcement proceedings “Funds may be claimed to cover: (a) payment ... for services necessarily required for unlocking doors or for unlocking storage facilities; (b) costs associated with the storage of seized items; (c) expenses associated with the service of public notices; (d) expenses resulting from the detention of a debtor; (e) expenses associated with an auction. The Minister of Justice of Georgia may provide for other expenses to be paid as well.” 26. Pursuant to Order no. 100 § 1 of the Minister of Justice dated 25 November 1999, apart from the items listed in section 39(1) of the Enforcement Act, the costs resulting from (a) bank services, (b) searching the debtor’s property, (c) auditing, (d) transportation of movable assets and (e) telephone and postal services are treated as enforcement-related expenses. Section 113(1) (introduced on 5 December 2000): The enforcement fee “Prior to the enactment of the Enforcement Fees Act, a fee for the payment of judgment debts shall be introduced and its amount set at 7% of the judgment debt. The creditor shall pay the fee after receiving the debt ...” 27. The Enforcement Fees Act has not been enacted to date. 28. The Georgian Criminal Code provides, in so far as relevant: Article 381 “The non-enforcement of a binding judgment or other judicial decision, or the obstruction of its execution by the State, government or local-government officials or by executives of a corporation or of other organisations [shall be punished] ...” 7 APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 29. The Georgian Code of Civil Procedure provides: Article 268 § 1 (a) to (d): Immediately enforceable judgments “Pursuant to a request by a party, the court may deliver the following types of judgment to be immediately enforced in part or in full: (a) judgments concerning entitlement to alimony; (b) judgments concerning entitlement to compensation for damage caused by mutilation or other bodily injury or by the death of a carer; (c) judgments concerning an employee’s entitlement to loss of earnings for no more than three months; (d) judgments concerning the reinstatement of an unlawfully dismissed person.” III. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (“VENICE COMMISSION”) 30. A Venice Commission expert’s opinion of 19 April 1999 on proposals for amending the Georgian Constitutional Court Act and the Constitutional Proceedings Act contains the following passage: “It is to be conceded that decisions by the Constitutional Court may contain some vagueness as regards their execution. The Georgian Legislature, in order to cope with this problem, might take into consideration the solution in the German Law on the Federal Constitutional Court which provides in Article 35: ‘In its decision the Federal Constitutional Court may state by whom it is to be executed; in individual instances it may also specify the method of execution.’” 31. The Opinion of the Venice Commission on Draft Constitutional Amendments concerning the Reform of the Judiciary in Georgia (62nd Plenary Session, Venice, 11-12 March 2005) includes the following passage: “22. The existing Article 89 § 1 (f) [of the Constitution] already provides for individual access to the Constitutional Court in the form of a so-called ‘non-real’ constitutional complaint (term used in German doctrine) against normative acts. It is welcomed that the draft Article 89 § 1 (f) would give this right not only to citizens but to persons in general. 23. In addition to this, draft Article 89 § 1 (f) would allow the Constitutional Court to consider the ‘constitutionality of decisions of courts with regards to fundamental human rights and freedoms set forth in Chapter II of the Constitution on the basis of a claim of an individual or the application by the Public Defender of Georgia’. The draft thus adds a ‘real’ constitutional complaint also against individual acts – final court decisions. 24. This provision represents a substantial increase in the jurisdiction and powers of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court is given a power of review over the ordinary courts’ decisions where human rights questions are concerned. The fact that the jurisdiction to review can be exercised on the complaint of a citizen creates a powerful new tool for the enforcement of the human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Chapter II.” APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 8 THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A. Admissibility 1. First set of proceedings 32. With regard to the first set of proceedings, the applicant complained of the competent authorities’ refusal to enforce the judgment of 21 November 2001. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 33. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They stated that Article 42 § 1 of the Constitution guaranteed to everyone the right to a fair trial. Consequently, they argued, if the obligation to pay expenses prior to the initiation of enforcement proceedings had undermined the applicant’s right under Article 42 § 1 of the Constitution, he should have applied to the Constitutional Court (Article 89 of the Constitution) and requested abrogation of section 26 of the Enforcement Act. 34. The applicant did not reply to this objection (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above). 35. The Court reiterates that, under Article 35 of the Convention, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, § 41, 30 May 2006). However, in the area of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Convention provides for a distribution of the burden of proof. It is initially incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to convince the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, among other authorities, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II, and Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198). Only after this burden of proof has been discharged does it fall to the applicant to prove that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 57, 30 March 2004). 36. The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it has been 9 APOSTOL v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 35, Series A no. 40). This means, among other things, that the Court must take realistic account not only of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting Party concerned but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 65-69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV). 37. In the present case, the applicant’s complaint concerns the right to have a binding judicial decision enforced. This right, which is not explicitly contained in any provision of the Convention, has been read into Article 6 § 1 by the Convention institutions as an integral part of the “trial” (see Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports 1997-II). 38. The Court observes that neither Article 42 § 1 of the Constitution, relied on by the Government in this regard, nor any other constitutional provision sets forth guarantees against the non-enforcement of binding decisions which are at least remotely comparable to those developed in the Court’s case-law. While a literal reading of the relevant constitutional provision suggests that it actually provides for the right of access to a court, the Government have not referred to any decisions or judgments of the Constitutional Court which, like the Court’s case-law, have inferred a guarantee against non-enforcement from Article 42 § 1 of the Constitution. 39. The Court notes that, pursuant to Article 89 § 1 (f) of the Constitution and section 19(1)(e) of the Constitutional Court Act, the absence of a constitutional right renders a complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Constitution and, in accordance with section 18(e) of the Constitutional Proceedings Act, inadmissible for examination on the merits. Consequently, in so far as it is not the Court’s task to take the place of the Constitutional Court and interpret the Constitution, the Government’s failure to discharge the burden of proof by referring to the national judicial practice revealing the existence of a constitutional right to have binding judgments enforced prevents the Court from concluding that the applicant was able to claim such a right successfully before the Constitutional Court. 40. Moreover, the Court observes that Article 89 § 1 (f) of the Constitution provides for individual access to the Constitutional Court in the form of a so-called “abstract” constitutional complaint (see paragraphs 22, 23 and 31 above). This means in practice that individuals can question the constitutionality of the legislation in force, without necessarily being affected by its implementation. They cannot, however, challenge decisions made by the courts or the public authorities that directly affect their particular circumstances. 41. This model of individual constitutional complaint resembles that of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, which was found in Vén v. Hungary