RUB 2,256.90.
121. The Court reiterates that under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the supervision of the execution of its judgments is entrusted to the Committee of Ministers (see paragraphs 10 - 11 above). The Court has no competence to examine this complaint, which should have been submitted to the Committee of Ministers (see Haase and others v. Germany (dec.), No. 34499/04, 7 February 2008).
V. Application of Article 46 of the Convention
122. The Court notes at the outset that non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments constitutes a recurrent problem in Russia that has led to numerous violations of the Convention. The Court has already found such violations in more than 200 judgments since the first such finding in the Burdov case in 2002. The Court therefore finds it timely and appropriate to consider this second case brought by the same applicant under Article 46 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Article 46 Binding force and execution of judgments
1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution."
A. The parties' submissions
123. The applicant submitted that the Russian authorities' recurrent failure to enforce domestic judicial decisions delivered against them constituted a systemic problem as demonstrated by repeated non-enforcement of such decisions in his case.
124. The Government argued that no such problem existed in respect of either enforcement of judgments or domestic remedies. They argued that the Constitutional Court had not contested the existence of a special procedure for the execution of judicial decisions against the State (judgment of 14 July 2005). There were further specific regulations governing payment of benefits to Chernobyl victims. In 2007 considerable budgetary allocations were additionally made to pay outstanding debts under domestic judgments and the actual needs in such funds were reflected in the 2007 budget. The Government concluded that there were clear mechanisms for enforcement of such decisions, notably in respect of Chernobyl victims. The complexity of these mechanisms was attributable to the multilevel structure of the budgetary system and to the need for coordination between federal and local authorities. The Government submitted, in addition, some statistical information about enforcement of judgments provided by federal ministries and bailiffs.
B. The Court's assessment
1. General principles
125. The Court recalls that Article 46 of the Convention, as interpreted in the light of Article 1, imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to implement, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, appropriate general and/or individual measures to secure the right of the applicant which the Court found to be violated. Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], Nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002-VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, No. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008-...). This obligation was consistently emphasised by the Committee of Ministers in the supervision of the execution of the Court's judgments (see, among many authorities, Interim Resolutions DH(97)336 in cases concerning the length of proceedings in Italy; DH(99)434 in cases concerning the action of the security forces in Turkey; ResDH(2001)65 in
> 1 2 3 ... 53 54 55 ... 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
