er 2004, after expiry of a serviceman's contract and in the absence of his written agreement to a "flatless" discharge, he should be considered as serving voluntarily only until the provision of housing.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
12. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
A. Admissibility
13. The Government argued that the application was inadmissible. The proceedings in question had not been "civil" within the meaning of Article 6, because as a serviceman, the applicant had wielded a portion of the State's sovereignty, and because the subject matter of case had been excluded from ordinary courts' competence. The applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, because he had not brought proceedings against bailiffs, had not requested a change of the mode of enforcement, and had not complained to a court. The authorities had not idled. The bailiffs had fined the defendant and threatened it with a criminal prosecution. The applicant had rejected the flat in Bolshie Vyazyomy unreasonably, given that this village could also have been considered as his place of service. The delay had been caused by the scarcity of flats, and by the applicant's failure to submit enforcement papers in time.
14. The applicant maintained his complaint. Article 6 did apply to the proceedings, because at the material time his contract had expired, and he should have been discharged. He had had to reject the flat in Bolshie Vyazyomy, because this village had not been as well-planned as Krasnoznamensk, and because it could not have been considered as his place of service, given that during twelve years he had served in Krasnoznamensk. He did exhaust domestic remedies. The scarcity of flats had not been an excuse.
15. With regard to application of Article 6, the Court recalls that it has already dismissed the Government's similar arguments in another case (see Tetsen v. Russia, No. 11589/04, § 18, 3 April 2008).
16. With regard to domestic remedies, the Court notes that the Government have not shown how the remedies suggested to them would be effective in bringing the applicant closer to his desired goal - the provision of the flat.
17. 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
18. 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). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court 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,
> 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
