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

95/01 were enforced only on 13 December 2005, i.e. they were not enforced during about five years and nine months, and four years and eight months respectively.
25. All the judgments were not difficult to enforce as they required only bank transfers. The applicant did not obstruct the enforcement.
26. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of non-enforcement of the final judgments in the applicant's favour.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of supervisory review

27. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgments of 18 December 1997 and 12 February 1999 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 13 December 2000. She asserted that she had not been informed about the supervisory review proceedings, or present at the subsequent hearings of 4 April 2001, after the remittal of the cases for new consideration. She submitted that she had known about the quashing only after the present case had been communicated to the Government. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (cited above).
28. The Government contested the applicant's arguments. They argued, inter alia, that the applicant had known about the quashing at least on 4 April 2001, when she had participated at the hearings after the remittal of the cases. They submitted as evidence copies of the minutes of those hearings, signed by the judge and the clerk (see paras. 8 and 14). Therefore she had missed the six-month time-limit, as she had not lodged her complaint before the Court until 16 March 2005.
29. The Court firstly reiterates that judges are presumed to abide by their oaths and duties (Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, §§ 32, 33, Series A No. 254-B). It secondly notes that, as a rule, it cannot establish an authority's fault when neither the applicant nor the Government have adduced any evidence in support of their assertions and there is no other information before the Court which would enable it to resolve the disputed issue of fact (Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 29, Series A No. 76).
30. In the present case the Government have submitted the minutes of the hearings of 4 April 2001, signed by the judge, according to which the applicant was present.
31. The only document the applicant has provided as an evidence of her absence at the hearings was a copy of a page from the case-file on which the parties put their signatures acknowledging the receipt of the court judgments (see para. 9). However, it does not contain any information as to the attendance at the hearings. Absence of the applicant's signature attesting her receipt of the judgments of 4 April 2001 does not by itself mean she was absent at the hearings on that date.
32. Even assuming the difficulty for the applicant to prove her absence at the hearing, in view of the principles given above (see paragraph 29) the Court gives credit to the Government's submissions. The Court therefore cannot consider the applicant's assertions as sufficiently established and concludes that the complaint was lodged out of time.
33. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

34. 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 reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfac

> 1 2 3 4 5