Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Прохорова (Prokhorova) против России» [англ.]

ipt of the court's judgments. The applicant submits that she was not present at the hearings as she did not receive the judgments of 4 April 2001.
10. The judgment of 4 April 2001 is not enforced to date.

2. Second set of proceedings

11. On 12 February 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court awarded the applicant for arrears in child benefits RUB 3,607. The judgment was not enforced.
12. On 13 December 2000 upon request of the authorities the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It based its decision on the ground that the defendant was not present at the hearing and was not duly informed about it.
13. On 4 April 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh in case No. 2-4195/01 awarded the applicant RUB 7,408.63 of arrears in child benefits. The judgment was not appealed against.
14. The Government, like in respect of the previous case, asserted that the applicant had been present at the hearing and submitted a copy of the record of proceedings signed by a judge and a clerk.
15. The applicant maintained that she had not been present.
16. The judgment 4 April 2001 was enforced on 13 December 2005.

3. Third set of proceedings

17. On 24 March 2000 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant RUB 493.28 in child benefits. The judgment was not appealed against.
18. It was enforced only on 13 December 2005.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of non-enforcement

19. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgments in her favour of 18 December 1997, 4 April 2001 (in the case No. 2-3638/01), 12 February 1999, 4 April 2001 (in the case No. 2-4195/01) and 24 March 2000 were not duly enforced.
20. 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. [...]"
21. The Government contested that argument. At the same time they acknowledged that the judgment of 4 April 2001 (case No. 2-3638/01) was not enforced (see para. 40 below).

A. Admissibility

22. The Court notes that this complaint 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

23. 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 how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what was the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia, No. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
24. The judgments of 18 December 1997 and of 12 February 1999 were not enforced during approximately three years and a year and ten months respectively, before they were quashed by way of supervisory review on 13 December 2000. The judgment of 4 April 2001 (in the case No. 23638/01) is not enforced to date. The judgments of 24 March 2000 and of 4 April 2001 in the case No. 2-41

> 1 2 3 4 ... 5