Yakutiya) raised by Mrs Gladkova, the Court finds that, having concluded that there had been an infringement of the applicant's "right to a court" by the very use of the supervisory review procedure, it is not necessary to consider whether the procedural guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention were available in those proceedings (cf. Volkova v. Russia, No. 48758/99, § 39, 5 April 2005).
(b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
34. The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment constitutes the beneficiary's "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, No. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
35. The Court has found in many cases that the quashing of enforceable judgments frustrated the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decision and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the money they had legitimately expected to receive (see, among others, Ivanova v. Russia, No. 11697/05, § 23, 24 April 2008, Dmitriyeva v. Russia, No. 27101/04, § 32, 3 April 2008). In these circumstances, even assuming that the interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on them and was incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article in the present five cases.
III. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of non-enforcement
36. The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both cited above.
37. The Government alleged that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under domestic law. They notably referred to Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowing to complain 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. The Government further argued, in respect of several applicants, that they had failed to submit the enforcement documents to the relevant authorities and in good time, and therefore delayed execution of the awards. In some cases they claimed that the judgments in the applicants' favour had not been enforced because of the supervisory-review proceedings which had eventually resulted in the quashing of the respective awards. As regards the application by Mrs Sizintseva, they argued that the enforcement of the judgment in her favour did not exceed ten months and was compatible with the Convention.
38. The applicants maintained their claims. They argued that they had not significantly protracted the execution of the judgments and that substantial delays in enforcement had been attributable to the authorities.
A. Case No. 38585/04 by Mrs Sizintseva
39. The Court observes that the principles insisting that a final judicial decision must not be called into question and should be enforced represent two aspects of the same general concept, namely the right to a court (see Boris Vasilyev v. Russia, No. 30671/03, §§ 41 - 42, 15 February 2007; and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, No. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 67 - 68, 3 May 2007). The Court further observes that the judgment in the applicant's favour was quashed shortly after having become binding and enforceable. In these circumstances, it considers that Mrs Sizintseva's non-enforcement complaint is closely linked to the supervisory review issue and should be declared admissible as well. H
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
