te to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in this case, given notably the recurrent and persistent nature of the underlying problems, a large number of people affected by them in Russia and the urgent need to grant them speedy and appropriate redress at the domestic level.
(b) Existence of a practice incompatible with the Convention
131. The Court finds, at the outset, that the violations found in the present judgment were neither prompted by an isolated incident, nor attributable to a particular turn of events in this case, but were rather the consequence of regulatory shortcomings and/or administrative conduct of the authorities in the execution of binding and enforceable judgments ordering monetary payments by State authorities (compare Broniowski, cited above, § 189, and Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 229).
132. Although the Government denied such a situation in their additional observations, their submissions in the present case appear to run against an almost undisputed recognition at both domestic and international level of the existence of structural problems in this field (see paragraphs 25 and 38 - 45 above). The problems appear, in addition, to have been acknowledged by the Russian competent authorities (see notably CM/Inf/DH(2006)45, cited above) and are being repeatedly emphasised by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee's recent decisions noted, in particular, that the structural problems in question in the Russian legal system severely affected, by their nature and scale, its effectiveness and caused very numerous violations of the Convention (see paragraph 39 above).
133. The important concerns voiced and the findings made by various authorities and institutions are consonant with some 200 judgments of the Court which highlighted the multiple aspects of the underlying structural problems, which do not affect only Chernobyl victims, as in the present case, but also other large groups of the Russian population, including particularly some vulnerable groups. The State has thus been very frequently found to considerably delay the execution of judicial decisions ordering payment of social benefits such as pensions or child allowances, of compensation for damage sustained during military service or of compensation for wrongful prosecution. The Court cannot ignore the fact that approximately 700 cases concerning similar facts are currently pending before it against Russia and that some of the cases, like the present one, lead the Court to find a second set of violations of the Convention in respect of the same applicants (see Wasserman (No. 2), cited above, and Kukalo v. Russia (No. 2), No. 11319/04, 24 July 2008). Moreover, the victims of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement dispose of no effective remedy, either preventive or compensatory, that allows for adequate and sufficient redress at the domestic level (see paragraphs 101 - 117 above).
134. The Court's findings, taken in conjunction with the other material in its possession, thus clearly indicate that such breaches reflect a persistent structural dysfunction. The Court notes with grave concern that the violations found in the present judgment occurred several years after its first judgment of 7 May 2002, notwithstanding Russia's obligation under Article 46 to adopt, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, the necessary remedial and preventive measures, both at individual and general levels. The Court notes in particular that non-compliance with one of the judgments in the applicant's favour lasted until August 2007, not least because of the competent authorities' failure to adopt the necessary procedures (see paragraphs 80 - 81 above).
135. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the present situation must be qualified as a practice incompatible with the Convention (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], No. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V).
(c) General
> 1 2 3 ... 55 56 57 ... 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
