Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Маргушин (Margushin) против России» [англ.]

on the points which it had had the opportunity, but had failed, to raise in the civil proceedings. Accordingly, the Court cannot but view the proceedings concerning discontinuation of the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour as "an appeal in disguise" which could not justify the departure from the principle of legal certainty.
36. Having regard to the above, the Court finds that by discontinuing the enforcement proceedings in respect of the final judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities infringed the principle of legal certainty.
37. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of discontinuation of the enforcement of the judgment of 28 March 2001 as upheld on 22 August 2001.

2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

38. The Court reiterates that by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention, each Contracting State "shall secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention". The obligation to secure the effective exercise of the rights defined in that instrument may result in positive obligations for the State (see, among most recent authorities, Wilkowicz v. Poland, No. 74168/01, § 27, 4 November 2008). As regards the right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, those positive obligations may entail certain measures necessary to protect the right to property even in cases involving litigation between private individuals or companies (see Fuklev, cited above, § 91).
39. In this connection, the Court observes that the applicant obtained a final judgment in his favour against the Bank, a private legal entity. He duly applied to the bailiff's service for its enforcement. Accordingly, the State was under an obligation to ensure, through the adequate functioning of the bailiff's service, that the applicant received the judgment debt. Instead, the domestic courts discontinued the enforcement of the judgment. As a result, the applicant has been unable to receive the payment of the debt owed to him for many years.
40. Having regard to the above and to its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts have discontinued the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour in contravention of the principle of legal certainty, the Court considers that such failure on the part of the State to provide the mechanism for the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour was incompatible with its positive obligation in so far as the protection of the applicant's property rights were concerned. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

41. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 21 September 1998 remained unenforced for a long time, that the civil proceedings were long, that by the judgment of 28 March 2001 his claims had not been granted in full, and that he was tricked into signing the agreement with the Bank in 1998 according to which his deposit was transferred into the Sberbank.
42. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the events complained of do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Articles 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

43. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial re

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