Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Булычевы (Bulychevy) против России» [англ.]

. It follows that the applicants' complaint of the excessive length of the court proceedings was introduced after the expiry of the six months time-limit and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account
of the delayed enforcement of the final judgment

21. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgments of 21 October 1999 and 17 January 2000. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing within a reasonable time... 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..."

A. Admissibility

22. The Government argued that the final judgment could have already been executed in September or October 2001, if the applicants had accepted the flats offered by the authorities at the time. By domestic court decisions of 19 November and 17 December 2001, unsubmitted by Government, it had been established that the flat offered by the Town Council in October 2001 had met the requirements set in the final judgment in question. The applicants' unreasonable refusal to accept it had deprived them of victim status in respect of their complaint of the delayed enforcement. The Government further claimed that the applicants had missed the six month time-limit as they had complained to the Court two years and eight months after the Town Council had made them the above offer. Accordingly, they requested the Court to dismiss the applicants' complaint as lodged out of time.
23. The applicants maintained their complaints.
24. The Court observes from the material submitted that the enforcement proceedings were officially terminated on 27 August 2004. The relevant complaint by the first and the second applicants was lodged on 5 June 2004 and by the third applicant on 13 February 2006. It follows that in respect of the complaint by the first and the second applicants the Government's argument should be dismissed. However, it should be upheld in respect of the third applicant's complaint that was introduced after expiry of the six months time-limit and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
25. The Court notes that the application by the first and the second applicants 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

26. 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 the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, the amount and the nature of court award (see Raylyan v. Russia, No. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
27. In the case at hand the enforcement proceedings lasted for four years, seven months and eleven days: from 17 January 2000, when the judgment became binding, to 27 August 2004, when these proceedings were terminated.
28. The enforcement proceedings were officially opened on 28 February 2000. On an unspecified date the applicants brought a court act

> 1 2 3 4 5