ystems in such a way that the competent authorities can meet their obligation in this regard (see mutatis mutandis Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], No. 35382/97, § 24, ECHR 2000-IV, and Frydlender v. France [GC], No. 30979/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-VII).
(b) Application of these principles to the present case
71. The Court will consider the delays in the execution of the five judgments concerned in this case on the basis of the above principles.
(i) Judgment of 17 April 2003
72. The Shakhty Town Court's judgment of 17 April 2003 became binding and enforceable on 9 July 2003 and the defendant authority was or should have been aware of its obligation to pay the applicant the sum awarded as of that date. That the applicant submitted a writ of execution only a month later does not affect the starting point of the authority's obligation to comply with the judgment. Indeed, he could not be expected to bring any enforcement or other similar proceedings (see paragraph 68 above). Starting from that date, the defendant authority had thus an obligation to take all necessary measures, either on its own or in cooperation with other responsible federal and/or local authorities, to ensure that the necessary funds were made available so as to honour the State's debt. It appears indeed that the defendant authority had at its disposal all the necessary elements, such as the applicant's address and bank details, to proceed with the payment at any moment.
73. The time taken by the authorities to comply with a judgment should accordingly be calculated from the moment on which it became final and enforceable, that is, on 9 July 2003, until the moment when the judicial award was paid to the applicant, that is, on 19 August 2005. The time taken to comply with the judgment of 17 April 2003 was thus two years and one month.
74. Such a long delay in payment of a judicial award is on its face incompatible with the Convention requirements stated above and the Court finds no circumstance to justify it.
75. It is noted, in particular, that the enforcement was not of any complexity: the judgment required payment of a sum of money. The applicant made no obstacle to the enforcement. Nor can he be blamed for his attempt to seek relief with the bailiffs and the Federal Treasury after having waited in vain for more than nine months for the defendant's voluntary compliance with the judgment. On the other hand the Court notes that the writ of execution fruitlessly stayed with various authorities for lengthy periods, notably nine months with the defendant Department, four months with the bailiffs and eleven months with the Federal Treasury. The Court finds no justification for this inaction. The complexity of the multilevel budgetary system referred to by the Government cannot justify the lack of appropriate coordination between the authorities and their inaction during the above periods.
76. The above elements are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the State failed to enforce the judgment of 17 April 2003 within a reasonable time.
(ii) Judgment of 4 December 2003
77. The judgment of 4 December 2003 became final on 15 December 2003 and was enforced on 18 October 2006. The time taken by the authorities to comply with the judgment was two years and ten months. It is true, as pointed out by the Government, that the court modified this judgment twice. The first rectification was made on 14 November 2005 upon the defendant authority's request to reduce the initial award by RUB 155 (EUR 4). However the need for such a rectification may explain only a tiny fraction of the overall delay, if any. Yet the Government offered no explanation for the almost two years which elapsed between 15 December 2003 and 14 November 2005. Nor did it inform the Court of any measure taken by the defendant authority to enforce the judgment during that period. Eve
> 1 2 3 ... 45 46 47 ... 59 60 61
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
