Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Петр Королев (Petr Korolev) против России» [англ.]

te of the applicant's death and of the wish of Ms Koroleva, his widow, to pursue the proceedings he initiated.
44. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see {Jecius} v. Lithuania, No. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX). Furthermore, in some cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments and length of proceedings, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia, No. 21417/04, §§ 8 - 9, 13 July 2006 concerning the non-enforcement; {Horvathova} v. Slovakia, No. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005, in the context of the length of proceedings).
45. The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the cases referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], No. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). The Government did not contend that Ms Koroleva had no standing to pursue the case. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicant's widow has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention on account
of non-enforcement

46. The applicant complained that the Russian authorities' failure to fully pay him the award made by the judgment of 12 September 2002 violated the rights guaranteed to him by Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The relevant provisions read as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
"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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

Admissibility

47. The Government firstly submitted that the judgment of 12 September 2002 of the High Court of South Africa was not enforceable in Russia due to the lack of a pertinent agreement between Russia and South Africa. They further argued that in any event the applicant should have at least attempted to apply to a national court pursuant to Articles 410 and 411 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting enforcement of the judgment and, by failing to do so, he had not exhausted the available domestic remedies. They Government contended that the suggested remedy was effective and cited to this effect three decisions delivered by the Supreme Court of Russia, two of which upheld enforcement in Russia of the court judgments adopted previously in Ukraine and Belarus.
48. The applicant retorted that application to a national court with a request for enforcement of the judgment would have been ineffective in his case as there was no pertinent agreement between Russia and South Africa required by Article 409 of the Civil Code. He argued that for this reason the legal precedents cited by the Government were not applicable to his situation.
49. The Court is cognisant of the fact that according to its previous findings, a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings due to the fact that the defendant State authority must be duly notified and is thus well placed to

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7