Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Бутенко и другие (Butenko and others) против России» [англ.]

e dismissed.
21. 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. This complaint must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

22. The Government initially contended that by refusing to accept housing certificates the applicants had obstructed the only possible way of enforcement of the judgments. In their further observations the Government suggested that the enforcement period to be taken into consideration should start running from 7 May 2009, the day on which the mode of enforcement of the judgments had been definitely clarified.
23. The applicants maintained their complaints.
24. 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 applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia, No. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
25. Turning to the case at hand, the Court notes that the judgments have not been enforced to date. Hence, their enforcement has lasted for more than five years since the day they became binding.
26. The Court considers that the justifications put forward by the Government are unconvincing. The applicants cannot be blamed for having refused to accept the housing certificates. First, it does not transpire from the operative part of the judgments that grant of housing certificates was an appropriate way of enforcement of the judgments. Second, the domestic courts explicitly dismissed the authorities' action aimed at changing the mode of execution of the judgments to delivery of housing certificates.
27. In view of the above considerations, the Court rejects the Government's arguments and takes the view that the bulk of the non-enforcement period, from the day the judgments became binding to date, i.e. more than five years, should be considered as attributable to the authorities. Such a long delay in enforcement cannot be considered as reasonable in the light of the Court's established case-law (see the above cited Burdov (No. 2), § 67).
28. The Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

III. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

29. The applicant complained that they had no effective domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of the judgments. Article 13 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

30. The Government contended that the applicants had effective domestic remedies at their disposal.
31. The applicants maintained their complaint.
32. The Court considers that the non-enforcement complaint raised by the applicants was undoubtedly arguable. It follows that the complaint about remedies under Article 13 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. The Court further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. This complaint must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

33. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for a prolonged non-enforcement of a binding judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
34. The Court has found abov

> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6