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

61. On 19 June 2002 the Constitutional Court found the provisions constitutional, thus rejecting the applicant's claim. At the same time it noted that by these norms the State took an obligation to make the relevant payments within a specified period of time. It underlined, with the reference to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, that when an award is made by a final judgment, it should be enforced without delay.

J. Proceedings for revision of the judgment
of 15 November 2001

62. The applicant, relying on the decision of 19 June 2002 of the Constitutional Court, asked the Pervomayskiy District Court to review its final judgment of 15 November 2001 due to newly discovered circumstances.
63. On 18 February 2002 the District Court dismissed the request. That decision became final on 7 May 2003 when the Rostov Regional Court upheld it on appeal.

II. Relevant domestic law

64. Under section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months.
65. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Sobelin and Others v. Russia (Nos. 30672/03, 30673/03, 30678/03, 30682/03, 30692/03, 30707/03, 30713/03, 30734/03, 30736/03, 30779/03, 32080/03 and 34952/03, §§ 3342, 3 May 2007).

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

66. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 18 November 1997 in his favour had not been enforced. 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."
67. The Government contested that argument.
68. They argued that this complaint had been incompatible with the Convention ratione temporis in the part concerning non-enforcement of the judgment of 18 November 1997 because the Convention had entered into force in respect of Russia only on 5 May 1998. Besides, the documents concerning the enforcement since 1997 until 1999 had been destroyed and no details of the proceedings were available. They noted that the judgment had been executed partially till September 2000 and that after 15 March 2001 there had been no obligation to enforce the judgment as it had been quashed by way of supervisory review. They also mentioned that the applicant had failed to submit the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

A. Admissibility

69. With regard to the compatibility ratione temporis, the Court notes that on the date of introduction of the complaint concerning non-enforcement (5 February 2001), the judgment of 18 November 1997 remained unenforced, and the Court is hence competent to examine this complaint (see Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, No. 13820/04, § 26, 12 April 2007).
70. 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

71. The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a b

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10 11