in the present case.
17. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
on account of non-enforcement
18. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment.
A. Admissibility
19. The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible.
The applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, because they had not brought proceedings against the authorities responsible for the enforcement.
The complaint was manifestly ill-founded. The bailiffs had not idled: they had several times asked the council whether it had available flats, they had twice asked the court to change the mode of enforcement, and had attached the council's assets. The courts had caused no delays either. Besides, the nature of the award, the distribution of a property, required extra effort and time. The delay had been partly due to the council's reluctance to assume the expense of the federal budget. By contrast, the applicants had delayed the enforcement by engaging in friendly-settlement negotiations, advancing new claims, and appealing to courts.
20. The applicants maintained their complaint.
21. With regard to domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it is the Government who bear the burden of proof of the remedies' existence. The Government must show that the remedies were effective, accessible, capable to provide redress, and that they offered reasonable prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V). The Government have not explained how the suggested remedies would have met these requirements.
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 the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia, No. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
24. Given the above finding that the supervisory review of the judgment was incompatible with the Convention, the Court considers that the period of enforcement should be extended beyond the date of the supervisory review (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, No. 75470/01, §§ 25 - 26, 13 April 2006). Accordingly, to date the enforcement of the judgment has lasted over four years and nine months.
25. This period is prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. The Court accepts, to the Government's advantage, that the authorities did look for ways to enforce the judgment, and that the in-kind nature of the award complicated the enforcement. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the applicants were prevented from enjoying the award for a considerable time.
26. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
27. Lastly, the applicants complained about procedural defects in the supervisory-review proceedings and about an impossibility to appeal against the supervisory-review judgment.
28. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, an
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
