in about the authorities' negligence and to Chapter 59 of the Civil Code opening a way to claim non-pecuniary damage. In the Government's view the latter provision had proven its effectiveness in practice, as shown by several examples of domestic case-law.
65. They further submitted that the delays in execution of the judgments in the applicants' favour exceeded two years and in principle could be said to be incompatible with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention. However, several delays were attributable to the applicants, since some of them had submitted the enforcement papers to the wrong institutions. The enforcement procedure in respect of the domestic judgments had been reasonably suspended pending the prosecutor's inquiry. Some of the judgments had not been executed because of the supervisory-review proceedings. Contrary to the applicants' submissions, at no point did the authorities refuse to cooperate with them. Thus, the complaints were manifestly ill-founded.
66. The applicants maintained their claims. They pointed out that the judgments should have been executed immediately and that they had not been at fault as regards the delayed execution of the court awards.
A. Admissibility
67. As regards exhaustion, the Court has already found that the suggested remedies were ineffective (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, §§ 103 and 106 - 116, 15 January 2009, and Moroko v. Russia, No. 20937/07, §§ 25 - 30, 12 June 2008).
68. The Court further notes that the applicants' non-enforcement complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
69. 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). In each case the State avoided paying the judgment debt pursuant to at least one domestic judgment in the applicants' favour for more than one year, which is prima facie incompatible with the Convention requirements (see, among others, Kozodoyev and Others v. Russia, Nos. 2701/04 et seq., § 11, 15 January 2009).
70. As regards the judgments which had remained unexecuted by the dates of the annulment, the Court reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a manner which has been found to have been incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's "right to a court" cannot be accepted as justification for the failure to enforce that judgment (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, No. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006). In the present cases the judgments in the applicants' favour were enforceable until at least the respective dates of quashing and it was incumbent on the State to abide by their terms (see Velskaya v. Russia, No. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006).
71. As regards the objection concerning some of the applicants' failure to submit the enforcement papers in good time or to a due agency, the Court reiterates that where a judgment is against the State, the State must take the initiative to enforce it (see Akashev v. Russia, No. 30616/05, §§ 21 - 23, 12 June 2008). The complexity of the domestic enforcement procedure cannot relieve the State of its obligation to enforce a binding judicial decision within a reasonable time (see Burdov (No. 2), cited above, § 70).
72. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present eighty-seven cases.
V. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
73. The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy against the non-enforcement and quashing of the i
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 36 37 38
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
