forcement of the judgment of 28 November 2001
30. The applicant further complained under Articles 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both cited above, about non-enforcement of the judgment of 28 November 2001.
A. Admissibility
31. The Court notes that this complaint 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
32. The Court notes that in the present case the judgment of 28 November 2001 awarding the applicant with the enforceable claim was quashed in part on supervisory review and upheld by the supervisory instance as to the remainder. Thus, as regards the part of the award in the amount of RUB 150,000 which was annulled on 13 June 2002, the final binding judgment in respect of that sum had ceased to exist on the latter date. The remainder of the award in the amount of RUB 8.40 had been upheld by the supervisory instance and had not been modified in the subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the judgment of 28 November 2001 in that part has remained binding till present. Accordingly, the Court will examine separately the applicant's complaints in respect of the two parts of the judgment debt.
1. The part of the award quashed on 13 June 2002
33. As regards the award of RUB 150,000, it has remained unenforced for 4 months and 20 days until 13 June 2002, the date of its annulment.
34. The Court observes that the principles 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 Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 55 - 57; Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002-III). In the present case the non-enforcement was due, to a large extent, to the fact that the judgment to be enforced was quashed in course of the supervisory review proceedings. Having regard to this consideration, as well as to the finding above concerning violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6 § 1 on account of the quashing of the judgment in her favour, the Court does not consider it necessary, in the circumstances, to examine the applicant's complaint concerning the non-enforcement of that judgment separately (see, mutatis mutandis, Sobelin and Others v. Russia, Nos. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 67 - 68, 3 May 2007).
2. The remainder of the award
35. As regards the amount of RUB 8.40 (approximately 0.3 euros (EUR), it appears that the judgment debt in this part has not been enforced to date.
36. The Court reiterates that, to decide if the delay was reasonable, it will look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia, No. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007). While it is undisputed that the delay of execution was rather long, the Court has particular regard to the relative modesty of the unpaid sum. As regards the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, the Court notes the Government's argument that since 2006 the applicant refused to provide her banking details to the respondent authority. According to the Court's established case-law, it is not unreasonable that the authorities request the applicant to produce additional documents, such as bank details, to allow or speed up the execution of a judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, Akashev v. Russia, No. 30616/05, § 22, 12 June 2008).
37. In these particular circumstances, and having particular regard to the amount of the award at stake, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the applicant's complaint concerning the non-enforcement of this part of the award separate
> 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
