n assuming that the authority acted with more diligence at a later stage, such a long delay suffices for the Court to find a violation of the right to have this judgment enforced within a reasonable time.
(iii) Judgment of 24 March 2006
78. The Court finds it beyond any dispute that the judgment of 24 March 2006, which became binding on 22 May 2006, was executed on 2 November 2006, but only in part. The parties also agreed that the full execution of the judgment had only been effected on 17 August 2007.
79. While noting that the authorities acted with relative diligence by paying the awards in their major part within six months, the Court considers that Article 6 imposes an obligation to comply with a binding and enforceable judgment in full. The Court will thus assess the reasonableness of the whole period until full compliance. The time taken by the authorities to comply with the judgment in its entirety was thus one year and almost three months.
80. As it transpires notably from the Government's submissions and the Shakhty Deputy Prosecutor's letter of 29 April 2007 submitted by the applicant, the full enforcement of the judgment had not been possible given the absence of appropriate regulations or procedures at the federal level. Indeed, the upgrades decided by the Shakhty Town Court had not been paid to the applicant until the adoption of a specific procedure in that connection by the Ministry of Finance (see paragraph 19 above).
81. However, the Court has not found in the Government's submissions any reason justifying more than one year's delay in the adoption by the Ministry of Finance of the new procedure. Nor can the Court attribute the delay to objective difficulties referred to by the Government: the matter appeared to be under the sole control of the Government. In any event, the lack of general regulations or procedures on a federal level cannot per se justify such a long delay in compliance with a binding and enforceable judgment. In the Court's view, the right to a court would not be effective if the execution of a binding and enforceable judgment in a particular case were made conditional on the adoption by the administration of general procedures or regulations in the area concerned.
82. Finally, as regards the nature of the award, the Government argued that the benefits in question were not the applicant's only income and were thus of less importance. The Court cannot agree with this argument given that at least some of these awards concerned substantial amounts of compensation for health damage sustained by the applicant at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and leading to his life-long disability. In the Court's view, such awards can by no means be qualified as being marginal or insignificant in nature.
83. In view of these circumstances, the Court concludes that the authorities' failure for one year and almost three months to fully comply with the judgment of 24 March 2006 also violated the applicant's right to a court.
(iv) Judgments of 22 May 2007 and 21 August 2007
84. The Court notes that the Shakhty Town Court's judgments of 22 May 2007 and 21 August 2007 became final on 4 June 2007 and 3 September 2007 respectively; they were enforced on 5 December 2007 and 3 December 2007 respectively. The time taken by the authorities to enforce the judgments was six months and three months respectively.
85. The applicant referred to certain initial difficulties in obtaining enforcement of the former judgment which were swiftly resolved following the communication of his application by the Court to the Government. Be that as it may, the Court is satisfied that the periods of 6 and 3 months respectively taken by the authorities to enforce these judgments do not in themselves appear unreasonable; furthermore the Court finds no particular circumstance showing tha
> 1 2 3 ... 46 47 48 ... 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
