Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Саликова (Salikova) против России» [англ.]

his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."

A. Admissibility

66. 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

67. The Government did not provide a clear response to the complaint, having merely referred to the actions undertaken by the enforcement authorities.
68. The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicants and the authorities behaved, and what was the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia, No. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
69. The Court accepts that the enforcement of the applicant's award was relatively complex due to its technical nature and is mindful of the fact that a clarification of the judgment was demanded by the bailiff service.
70. At the same time, it observes that the applicant did not obstruct the enforcement and that the award has not been enforced for more than two years. It also takes cognizance of the fact that the drainage system has been badly needed to prevent further damage to the applicant's house and worsening of her housing situation.
71. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the State's failure to comply with the judgment has breached Article 6 of the Convention.

III. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

72. The applicant further complained that she had no effective domestic remedies against the excessive length of the proceedings and non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. She 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

73. 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

74. The Government contested the applicant's argument. Regarding the complaint of lack of effective remedies in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings, they stated that it had been open to the applicant to motion for replacement of the technical experts, to complain to the Judicial Qualifications Board or to the president of the court examining her case. In respect of the complaint of lack of effective remedies against non-enforcement, they argued that such remedies existed and had been identified by the Government in the case of Burdov v. Russia (No. 2).
75. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
76. The Court reiterates that according to its case-law there was at the material time no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva, cited above, §§ 61 - 62; Kuzin v. Russia, No. 22118/02, §§ 42 - 46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, No. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, No.

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8