ity of these issues is such as to require enhanced and concerted efforts of all actors within the Russian legal system.
61. Thorough reform strategies in this respect, however, still remain to be established. In view of the present problems raised in the judgments and others still to come, the Rapporteur has strongly recommended to the authorities to set up a special mechanism of interagency cooperation in the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments. Constant involvement of Parliament and the Russian delegation to the Assembly in the implementation process is also necessary. The Rapporteur is convinced that his Russian parliamentary colleagues will seriously consider his recommendation to set up a specific mechanism and procedure for parliamentary oversight to implement Strasbourg Court judgments, as well as other relevant proposals made in the draft resolution. The Rapporteur also trusts that the members of the Russian delegation to the Assembly will promote and follow-up the adoption of the specific measures required by certain judgments (for details, see Appendix III, Part III)."
B. United Nations
45. In the preliminary observations following a visit to Russia from 19 to 29 May 2008, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr Leandro Despouy, voiced "important concerns at the fact that an important percentage of judicial decisions, including those against state officials, were not implemented". He added that "problems with the implementation of judicial decisions in Russia had contributed to the poor image of the judiciary in the eyes of the population".
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
46. The applicant complained that the authorities' prolonged failure to comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in his favour violated his right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which in so far as relevant read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time 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..."
A. Parties' submissions
1. The Government
47. The Government initially argued in their observations that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. However, in their further observations in response to those of the applicant, the Government did not maintain their objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
48. The Government also submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations: the damage caused by enforcement delays had been compensated by additional indexation awards granted by courts under Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Government supported their submission by reference to certain decisions of the Court (notably Nemakina v. Russia (dec.), No. 14217/04, 10 July 2007, and Derkach v. Russia (dec.), No. 3352/05, 3 May 2007).
49. The Government further argued that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded: in their view, the periods of time from receipt of the necessary documents by the competent authorities to the effective payment of judicial awards had ranged between thirteen days and nine months and were thus reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law. The Government blamed the applicant for having re
> 1 2 3 ... 41 42 43 ... 59 60 61