22 July 2004 were received by the bailiff service of the Vladimir Region, which initiated the enforcement proceedings on the same day. In the course of the proceedings the bailiff service established that the judgment could not be enforced due to the debtor's liquidation. On 21 June 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir terminated the enforcement proceedings.
10. On 29 December 2006 the Murom Town Court refused to replace the respondent authority by the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia on the ground that the latter was not a legal successor to the defunct State Fire Department. The judgment was upheld by the Vladimir Regional Court on 19 April 2007.
11. The applicant further sued the Ministry of Finance for damages resulting from the firemen's negligence. On 17 April 2007 the Vladimir Regional Court in the final instance rejected her complaints as unfounded.
II. Relevant domestic law
12. Under section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment in two months. Under section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of Finance must enforce a judgment in three months.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
13. The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the judgment breached Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As far as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
"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.
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
14. The Court notes that the application 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
15. The Government argued that it was through the applicant's own negligence that the judgment has not been enforced. She delayed submitting the writs of execution to the enforcement authorities for over eighteen months after the judgment became final.
16. The applicant maintained her complaint.
17. The Court reiterates that a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Metaxas v. Greece, No. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004). Where a judgment is against the State, the defendant State authority must be duly notified thereof and is thus well placed to take all necessary initiatives to comply with it or to transmit it to another competent State authority responsible for compliance (see Akashev v. Russia, No. 30616/05, § 21, 12 June 2008).
18. Furthermore, the Government provided no justification for the State's continuing failure to comply with the judgment after the applicant submitted the necessary documents to the authorities.
19. The Court reiterates in this respect that liquidation proceedings against a State organ cannot absolve the State of its responsibility to enforce a final judgment. To conclude otherwise would allow the State to use this avenue to avoid payment of the debts of its organs, especially
> 1 2 3 4 ... 5
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
