he Government's submissions which would persuade it to depart from its earlier finding. It follows that the applicant was not required to exhaust the domestic remedies, as indicated by the Government, and the Government's objection must be dismissed.
48. The Court further notes that this 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
49. The Government submitted that the judgment of 17 June 2005 had been enforced in good time. They considered that the period under consideration had not started to run until 9 December 2005 when the applicant had submitted the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance. It had ended on 25 December 2005 when the monies were transferred. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to submit his bank details to the Ministry of Finance, which had had to ask him to do so on 9 November 2006. The applicant's response had reached the Ministry on 19 December 2006 and the latter had paid the monies to the applicant six days later.
50. The applicant maintained his complaint.
51. The Court observes that the judgment of 17 June 2005 was not appealed against and became enforceable ten days later, that is, on 27 June 2005. The applicant received the monies on 28 December 2006. Accordingly, it took the domestic authorities one and a half years to enforce the judgment in the applicant's favour. The Court's task is, therefore, to ascertain whether such a period of enforcement was reasonable in the circumstances of the present case (see, among other authorities, Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), No. 75907/01, 8 July 2004).
52. In this respect 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). The respondent State authority must be duly notified of the judgment against the State 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. This especially applies where, in view of the complexities and possible overlapping of the execution and enforcement procedures, an applicant may have reasonable doubts about which authority is responsible for the execution or enforcement of the judgment (see Akashev v. Russia, No. 30616/05, § 21, 12 June 2008).
53. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that all the delays in the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour are attributable to the authorities. Admittedly, from 27 June until 9 December 2005 the applicant failed to submit the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance. Nevertheless, even assuming that the applicant could have been more diligent when contacting various state bodies, the Court cannot but notice that the state bodies themselves were not in agreement as to the way in which the judgment was to be enforced and advised the applicant in a contradictory manner on the issue. Furthermore, the judgment and the writ of execution contained certain defects which had to be corrected. Lastly, the Court notes that, when reapplying to the Ministry of Finance on 10 May 2006, the applicant indeed failed to provide his bank details. However, it took the Ministry of Finance another six months to advise him of that omission on his part. The relevant letter to the applicant was not sent until 9 November 2006. It appears that the applicant promptly responded submitting the information requested and the judgment debt was paid on 28 December 2006.
54. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the domestic authorities have failed to take the initiative in enforcing the judgment of 17 June 2005 in the applicant's
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
