the case of Akuginova and others by the Elista City Court, Republic of Kalmykiya; decision of 3 August 2004 in the case of Butko by the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan; decision of 28 March 2008 in the case of Shubin by the Beloretsk Town Court, Republic of Bashkortostan).
93. Thirdly, the Government referred to Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 395 of the Civil Code as providing grounds for compensation of pecuniary damage. The former allows index-linking of judicial awards and its application is not conditional on the establishment of fault for delays; several examples of its successful application were provided. The latter allows the claiming of default interest and further compensation for additional pecuniary damage arising from delayed enforcement; two Supreme Court decisions applying this provision in non-enforcement cases in 2002 and 2006 were provided.
94. Lastly, the Government submitted that the Supreme Court had prepared a draft constitutional law introducing a domestic remedy against excessive length of judicial proceedings and delayed enforcement of judgments and that it would shortly be considered by the Government.
95. The Government concluded that Russian law provided for an aggregate of various remedies which should be considered as a whole; they were formulated with clarity and applied in practice as required by Article 13.
B. Court's assessment
1. General principles
96. The Court recalls that Article 13 gives direct expression to the States' obligation, enshrined in Article 1 of the Convention, to protect human rights first and foremost within their own legal system. It therefore requires that the States provide a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
97. The scope of the Contracting States' obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant. At the same time, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred. Even if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see {Kudla}, cited above, §§ 157 - 158, and Wasserman v. Russia (No. 2), No. 21071/05, § 45, 10 April 2008).
98. As regards more particularly length-of-proceedings cases, a remedy designed to expedite the proceedings in order to prevent them from becoming excessively lengthy is the most effective solution (see Scordino v. Italy (No. 1) [GC], No. 36813/97, § 183, ECHR 2006-...). Likewise, in cases concerning non-enforcement of judicial decisions, any domestic means to prevent a violation by ensuring timely enforcement is, in principle, of greatest value. However, where a judgment is delivered in favour of an individual against the State, the former should not, in principle, be compelled to use such means (see, mutatis mutandis, Metaxas, cited above, § 19): the burden to comply with such a judgment lies primarily with the State authorities, which should use all means available in the domestic legal system in order to speed up the enforcement, thus preventing violations of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Akashev, cited above, § 21 - 22).
99. States can also choose to introduce only a compensatory remedy, without that remedy being regarded as ineffective. Where such a compensatory remedy is available in the domestic legal system, the Court must leave a wider margin
> 1 2 3 ... 48 49 50 ... 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
