Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 «Дело Козодоев и другие (Kozodoyev and others) против России» [англ.]

s had failed to exhaust domestic remedies such as a claim for damages, an adjustment for the cost of living, and a negligence action. The applicants had missed the six-month time-limit for applying to the Court. The authorities had done their best to enforce the judgments. Any delays had been caused by objective obstacles such as the complexity of the budgetary system, the applicants' failure to respect formalities, and the applicants' refusal of settlement offers.
7. The applicants maintained their complaints insisting that the judgments had been enforced with unreasonable delays or enforced only partly.
8. The Court notes that it has on many occasions rejected arguments similar to the ones raised by the Government in the present case (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (dec.), No. 59498/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Akashev v. Russia, No. 30616/05, §§ 22 - 23, 12 June 2008; Nazarchuk v. Ukraine, No. 9670/02, § 20, 19 April 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, No. 43883/02, § 16, 24 February 2005). In the present cases the Court will also reject these arguments.
9. 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

10. 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).
11. In the present cases, for each applicant the enforcement of at least one judgment exceeded one year. Taking into consideration the lack of complexity of the enforcement, the parties' behaviour and the nature of the awards, the Court finds that this period was incompatible with the requirements of the Convention.
12. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

13. The applicants also made a number of accessory complaints referring to Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 18 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
14. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

15. 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 satisfaction to the injured party."
16. The applicants advanced wide-ranging claims in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses. The Government contested most of the claims as unfounded.
17. The Court considers that the applicants have sustained pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a result of the delayed enforcement of the judgments. The Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgments that are marked as outstanding in the table below (see, with further references, Poznakhirina v. Russia, No. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005). In addit

> 1 2 3