of appreciation to the State to allow it to organise the remedy in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and consonant with the standard of living in the country concerned. The Court is nonetheless required to verify whether the way in which the domestic law is interpreted and applied produces consequences that are consistent with the Convention principles, as interpreted in the light of the Court's case-law (see Scordino, cited above, § 187 - 191). The Court has set key criteria for verification of the effectiveness of a compensatory remedy in respect of the excessive length of judicial proceedings. These criteria, which also apply to non-enforcement cases (see Wasserman, cited above, §§ 49 and 51), are as follows:
- an action for compensation must be heard within a reasonable time (see Scordino, cited above, § 195 in fine);
- the compensation must be paid promptly and generally no later than six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation becomes enforceable (ibid., § 198);
- the procedural rules governing an action for compensation must conform to the principle of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention (ibid., § 200);
- the rules regarding legal costs must not place an excessive burden on litigants where their action is justified (ibid., § 201);
- the level of compensation must not be unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (ibid., §§ 202 - 206 and 213).
100. On this last criterion, the Court indicated that, with regard to pecuniary damage, the domestic courts are clearly in a better position to determine the existence and quantum. The situation is, however, different with regard to non-pecuniary damage. There exists a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings will occasion non-pecuniary damage (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 203 - 204, and Wasserman, cited above, § 50). The Court considers this presumption to be particularly strong in the event of excessive delay in enforcement by the State of a judgment delivered against it, given the inevitable frustration arising from the State's disregard for its obligation to honour its debt and the fact that the applicant has already gone through judicial proceedings and obtained success.
2. Application of the principles to the present case
(a) Preventive remedies
101. The Court recalls that it has already found in several cases that there was no preventive remedy in the Russian legal system which could have expedited the enforcement of a judgment against a State authority (see Lositskiy v. Russia, No. 24395/02, §§ 29 - 31, 14 December 2006, and Isakov v. Russia, No. 20745/04, § 21 - 22, 19 June 2008). It found in particular that the bailiffs did not have power to compel the State to pay the judgment debt.
102. The bailiffs' incapacity to influence in any way the enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour, let alone to bring him relief, was also demonstrated in the present case. In April and June 2004 enforcement proceedings were instituted by bailiffs in respect of the judgments of 14 April and 4 December 2003. In July 2004 they were discontinued without bringing any result. The Rostov Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant by a letter of 12 July 2004 that the bailiffs did not have power to seize funds from the debtor authority's main bank account (лицевой счет), while its settlements account (расчетный счет), on which bailiffs could seize funds, contained none.
103. The Government further considered that another remedy provided for by Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure was capable of producing a preventive effect. Yet the Court has already assessed its effectiveness and concluded that a judicial appeal against the debtor authority's inaction would yield a
> 1 2 3 ... 49 50 51 ... 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
