Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.04.2010 «Дело Сметанко (Smetanko) против России» [англ.]

ration.
11. On 21 June 2001, the Dinskiy District Court granted N.'s claims in part. On 6 September 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 June 2001 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
12. On 4 March 2002 the Dinskiy District Court ordered the applicant to pay N. 103,960 Russian roubles (RUB) in reimbursement for her expenses incurred during the construction of his house. The applicant's counterclaims were dismissed. On 2 April 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 4 March 2002 on appeal.

B. Execution of the judgment of 4 March 2002

13. On 10 April 2002 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 March 2002.
14. On 5 July 2002 the bailiff seized the applicant's house and car. On an unspecified date, at the applicant's request, the courts lifted the seizure order in respect of the car.
15. On 24 October 2002 the applicant paid the judgment debt owed to N. and the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings.
16. It appears that on an unspecified date the seizure order was lifted in respect of the house and the applicant sold it.

C. Supervisory review of the judgment of 4 March 2002
and fresh consideration of N.'s claims

17. On 23 January 2003 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgments of 4 March 2002 and 2 April 2002 by way of a supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
18. On 17 April 2003 the Dinskiy District Court dismissed N.'s claims.
19. On 23 December 2003 the Regional Court gave a final judgment ordering N. to repay the applicant the monies awarded to her by the judgment of 4 March 2002. It appears that that decision was enforced shortly thereafter.

D. Proceedings against the bailiff and execution
of the judgment of 17 June 2005

20. On 14 September 2004 the Regional Court gave a final judgment dismissing the applicant's complaint about the allegedly unlawful seizure of his house by the bailiff as time-barred.
21. On 17 June 2005 the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar dismissed the applicant's action against the bailiff for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court, however, ordered that the applicant be repaid the enforcement fee of RUB 7,278.
22. On an unspecified date, the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the Treasury. On 15 July 2005 the Treasury returned the writ of execution to the applicant advising him to resubmit it to the Ministry of Justice.
23. On 3 August 2005 the applicant asked the Pervomaiskiy District Court to clarify the part of the judgment of 17 June 2005 concerning its enforcement. On 24 August 2005 the Pervomaiskiy District Court held that the award was to be paid by the Ministry of Finance.
24. On 4 October 2005 the applicant resubmitted the writ to the Treasury. On 10 October 2005 the Treasury returned the writ to the applicant advising him to lodge it with the bailiff.
25. On 9 December 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance. On 9 March 2006 the Ministry of Finance returned the writ of execution advising the applicant that the District Court had erred in its indication of who was liable for the judgment debt. In the Ministry's view, the District Court should have specified that it was the Treasury and not the Ministry.
26. On 10 May 2006 the applicant resubmitted the writ of execution and accompanying documents. On 9 November 2006 the Ministry of Finance asked him for his bank details.
27. On 28 December 2006 the judgment in the applicant's favour was enforced.

E. Action for compensation for the excessive
length of proceedings

28

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8