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

ion.
(iii) Conclusion
43. Having regard to the above, the Court is satisfied that the compensation awarded and paid to the applicant in respect of the excessive length of the civil proceedings in his case constituted an appropriate and sufficient redress. The applicant may not, therefore, still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint must be rejected pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the delayed
enforcement of the judgment of 17 June 2005

44. The applicant complained that the enforcement of the judgment of 17 June 2005 had been unduly delayed. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
"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."

A. Admissibility

45. The Government contended that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint. In their view, the applicant should have complained to a court about the alleged failure by the Ministry of Finance to enforce the judgment in his favour in good time as provided for in Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure. Alternatively, he could have brought an action for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the non-enforcement of the said judgment pursuant to Chapter 59 of the Russian Civil Code or asked a court to adjust the amount awarded in accordance with Article 208 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure. In support of their argument they cited two examples of domestic case-law. In particular, on 13 July 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary found the inaction on the part of the Regional Department of the Federal Treasury to be in contravention of the law and compelled the latter to transfer the monies to the plaintiff within one working day. On 23 October 2006 the Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan granted the plaintiffs' claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour. Lastly, they referred to certain decisions of the Court (notably Nemakina v. Russia (dec.), No. 14217/04, 10 July 2007; Derkach v. Russia (dec.), No. 3352/05, 3 May 2007; and Yakimenko v. Russia (dec.), No. 23500/04, 15 May 2007), where the Court found that the applicants' successful application for adjustment of the sum of the judgment debt deprived them of their victim status.
46. The applicant considered his complaint admissible.
47. The Court notes that the Government have already raised the same argument in a number of Russian cases concerning continued non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour. The Court has examined and dismissed them finding the said remedies ineffective (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, §§ 103 and 106 - 116, 15 January 2009, and Moroko v. Russia, No. 20937/07, §§ 25 - 30, 12 June 2008). The Court discerns nothing in t

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8