Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 «Дело Журавлев (Zhuravlev) против России» [англ.]

bject 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."

A. Admissibility

10. The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. The applicant had missed the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, because he had complained to the Court on 21 November 2006 (the date of the application form), whereas the judgment had been enforced on 15 December 2005. The applicant had abused his right of petition, because he had failed to inform the Court of the enforcement of earlier judgments. The applicant had lost his victim status. The delay of the enforcement had breached the Convention, but the domestic court had acknowledged this and awarded compensation.
11. The applicant maintained his complaint. He had complied with the six-month rule, because his first application to the Court had been dated 13 December 2005. He had not abused his right of petition, because the facts concerning the earlier judgments had been outside the scope of his application, and hence could have been safely omitted. He had retained his victim status, because the adjustment for the cost of living had not included an acknowledgement of a violation, had been insufficient, and had not compensated non-pecuniary damage. The Government had admitted that the delay of enforcement had breached the Convention.
12. With regard to six months, the Court notes that the application was introduced on two forms: the complaint about the non-enforcement was included in the form of 13 December 2005, and the other complaints were included in the form of 21 November 2006. Since at the time of the introduction of the complaint about the non-enforcement, the judgment was outstanding, it is impossible to apply the six-month rule (see Nazarchuk v. Ukraine, No. 9670/02, § 20, 19 April 2005).
With regard to the abuse of petition, the Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive if, among other things, it was knowingly based on falsities (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, No. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X). However, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court cannot discern any deceit on the applicant's part.
With regard to the victim status, the Court reiterates that an adjustment for the cost of living was inadequate because it did not compensate non-pecuniary damage.
13. 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

14. The Government have admitted that the period of enforcement of the judgment of 4 December 2002 had been incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
15. In the circumstances of the present case the Court finds no reason to hold otherwise. There has, accordingly, been a violation of these Articles.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

16. The applicant also complained under Articles 5 § 5, 6 § 3 (c), and 7 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 7, that his conviction was unjust and that compensation for it was too small.
17. Insofar as these complaints relate to the applicant's conviction and imprisonment, the Court notes that these events took place in 1985, i.e. long before the entry of the Convention into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998. It follows that these complaints are incompatible ratione temporis with t

> 1 2 3