ave lodged a claim for non-pecuniary damage under Chapter 59 § 4 of the Civil Code. Third, the applicant could have requested an upgrade of the judgment debt under Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
20. The applicant maintained his complaint.
21. The Court has already assessed the effectiveness of the remedies quoted by the Government and concluded that they did not satisfy the Convention requirements at the material time (see Kulkov and Others v. Russia, Nos. 25114/03 et seq., §§ 42 - 47, 8 January 2009). The Court sees no reason to depart from those findings in the case at hand.
22. 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
23. The Government did not discern any irregularity in the enforcement proceedings in question, while the applicant maintained his complaint.
24. The Court notes that the judgment of 14 September 2001, binding since 7 December 2001, remained unenforced in part of the pecuniary damage award until 10 December 2002, whereas in part of the non-pecuniary damage award its non-enforcement lasted until the supervisory review of 26 September 2003. Hence, the periods of enforcement amount respectively to twelve and twenty-one months. While the first period can arguably be considered as reasonable, the second one is incompatible with the requirements of the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, §§ 66 - 67, ECHR 2009-...).
25. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
26. The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7, that his conviction was unjust and that the compensation for it was too small.
27. Insofar as these complaints relate to the applicant's conviction and imprisonment, the Court notes that these events took place in 1987, i.e. long before the entry of the Convention into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998. It follows that these complaints are incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see Zhuravlev v. Russia, No. 5249/06, § 17, 15 January 2009).
28. Insofar as these complaints relate to the amount of compensation, the Court notes that the conviction was quashed in 1988, i.e. before the entry of Protocol No. 7 into force in respect of Russia on 1 August 1998. It follows that these complaints are also incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see the above cited Zhuravlev, § 18).
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
29. 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
30. The applicant claimed 1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
31. The Government argued that this claim was excessive and unreasonable.
32. The Court accepts that the applicant must have been distressed by the non-enforcement of the judgment. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards 1,800 EUR under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
33. The applicant has made no claim for the costs
> 1 2 3 4
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
