Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 «Дело Козодоев и другие (Kozodoyev and others) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KOZODOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications Nos. 2701/04, 3597/04, 11898/04,
31946/04 and 34826/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 15.I.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kozodoyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by the Russian nationals listed in the table below.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaint concerning non-enforcement of judgments to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3). The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits, but the Court rejected this objection.

THE FACTS

4. The applicants obtained civil judgments against the State and its agencies. The judgments became binding but their full enforcement was delayed. Particulars of the judgments are tabulated below.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

5. The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

A. Admissibility

6. The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. Not all applicants had been victims, among other things because the delayed awards had been adjusted for the cost of living. Some judgments had been given before 5 May 1998 (the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia), and hence the complaint was incompatible ratione temporis. The applicant



> 1 2 3

	Поделиться:	Tweet