Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Аббасов (Abbasov) против России» [англ.]

up in the Court's judgment in the case of Sobelin and Others v. Russia (Nos. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 33 - 42, 3 May 2007).
13. In 2001 - 2004 judgments delivered against the public authorities were executed in accordance with a special procedure established, inter alia, by Government's Decree No. 143 of 22 February 2001 and, subsequently, by Decree No. 666 of 22 September 2002, entrusting execution to the Ministry of Finance (see further details in Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, Nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, §§ 33 - 39, 21 June 2007).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of supervisory
review of 26 September 2003

14. The applicant complained in substance that the judgments of 14 September 2001 and 7 December 2001 had been quashed by the Supreme Court. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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... 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."
15. The Government argued that this complaint had been introduced out of time.
16. The applicant maintained his complaint, but did not comment on the issue of six months.
17. The Court notes that the quashing complained of took place on 26 September 2003, whereas the complaint about it was indeed raised for the first time before the Court on 23 January 2006 only. The Court reiterates that quashing of a judgment by means of supervisory review is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation (see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), No. 69582/01, 12 February 2004). The Court observes that on 13 May 2004 the applicant received the money awarded to him in non-pecuniary damage by the appeal decision of 28 November 2001 (see paragraph 11 above), the validity of which had been restored by the supervisory review of 26 September 2003. This fact permits the Court to conclude that the applicant must have learnt about the supervisory review in question on 13 May 2004 at the latest. It follows that the complaint about the quashing of 26 September 2003 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement
of the Judgment of 14 September 2001 as confirmed
on 7 December 2001

18. The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment of 14 September 2001 as confirmed by the judgment of 7 December 2001. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant parts of which are quoted above.

A. Admissibility

19. The Government alleged that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under domestic law. First, the applicant could have complained under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure about the authorities' failure to comply with the given judgment. Second, the applicant could h

> 1 2 3 4