Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.09.2010 «Дело Васильченко (Vasilchenko) против России» [англ.]

applicant's complaint of the delayed enforcement of the part of the judgment of 21 January 2002, the Court recalls that the applicant was reinstated in his job on 30 January 2003 and received RUB 1,000 in compensation of non-pecuniary damage on 9 April 2004. The Court further recalls that the applicant received lump-sum compensation for the delayed enforcement of the judgment in the amount of RUB 5,000 on 8 April 2004 and in the amount of RUB 2,750 on 28 January 2005.
47. With regard to the above, the Court finds that the part of the judgment concerning reinstatement in the job was enforced within a reasonable time. Thus, this part of the applicant's complaint should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), No. 41145/02, 10 November 2005). It further considers that the authorities acknowledged and appropriately redressed the delayed payment of RUB 1,000. The Court is therefore of the opinion that the applicant has lost his victim status as to this part of his complaint, which should be rejected in accordance with Article 34 of the Convention.
48. Regarding the applicant's complaint of delayed enforcement of the judgment of 8 April 2004, the Court recalls that the applicant received the due amounts in two instalments on 30 August and 1 November 2004. The Court considers that the delay in the enforcement of the award did not breach the standards laid down in its case-law (ibidem). The complaint therefore should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
49. Turning to the complaint concerning the continuing failure to enforce the award of RUB 500, the Court observes that the applicant received lump-sum compensation in the amount of RUB 5,000 for the delayed enforcement of the award of 21 January 2002. Considering the total amount of compensation received at the domestic level and the minor nature of the award roughly equal to 12 euros, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the applicant did not suffer significant disadvantage as a result of the authorities' failure to enforce the award. The Court further observes that the systemic problem of non-enforcement in Russia has been addressed on numerous occasions both in its own judgments and in the decisions of the Committee of Ministers and concludes that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require examination of the present complaint on its merits. Finally, it observes that the applicant's case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal in the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) as evidenced in the judgments of 8 April 2004 and 28 January 2005. In view of the foregoing, this complaint should be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b), as amended by Protocol 14 (see Korolev v. Russia (dec), No. 25551/05, 1 July 2010).
50. Accordingly, the Court rejects all the complaints under this head as inadmissible.

III. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
on account of unreasonable length of proceedings
and non-enforcement

51. The applicant further complained that he had not had an effective remedy against the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings in his case and non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

A. Admissibility

52. The Government submitted that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded and requested to reject it in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7