second applicant's non-enforcement complaint.
26. The applicants maintained their claims. In particular, the first applicant submitted that the authorities had taken no steps to execute the judgment and that he had unsuccessfully complained about the non-enforcement to various authorities, in particular to the Ministry of Finance.
A. Admissibility
27. As regards exhaustion, the Court has already 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).
28. 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.
B. Merits
29. 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.
30. As regards the objection concerning the first applicant's 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).
31. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
32. The first applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the decision of the Presidium to quash on supervisory review the final judgment in his favour.
33. The Court notes that Article 13 of the Convention does not, as such, guarantee the right to appellate remedies in respect of a decision taken by way of supervisory review, and the mere fact that the judgment of the highest judicial body is not subject to further judicial review does not infringe in itself the said provision (see Sitkov v. Russia (dec.), No. 55531/00, 9 November 2004). It follows that the complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 thereof.
34. The applicants also complained under Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the domestic courts' findings and overall unfairness of the State bonds redemption program.
35. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do 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 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in ac
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
