owever, having regard to its findings above concerning violation of the applicant's rights on account of the quashing of the judgments in their favour, the Court does not consider it necessary, in the circumstances of the case, to examine her complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the respective judgment separately (see Sobelin and Others, cited above).
B. The remaining cases (Nos. 2795/05, 18590/05,
24012/07 and 55283/07)
1. Admissibility
40. As regards exhaustion, the Court has recently assessed the effectiveness of the remedies referred to by the Government and 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). The Government's objection must therefore be dismissed.
41. 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.
2. Merits
42. 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). The Court further 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). However, in each case the State avoided paying the judgment debt for more than one year.
43. As regards the objection concerning the applicants' failure to submit the enforcement papers in good time, 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).
44. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the four cases at hand.
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
45. Mrs Gladkova (application No. 18590/05) complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the court proceedings in her case.
46. The Court has examined this complaint as submitted by the applicant. Having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application by Mrs Gladkova must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
47. 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."
A. Damage
1. Pecuniary damage
(a) The parties' submissions
4
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 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
