18. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour. 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
19. The Government contested admissibility of the applications on various grounds. The applicants maintained their claims.
1. Compliance with the six months rule
20. The Government argued that the applications by Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Gurova and Mrs Sedykh were inadmissible, because they had been lodged more than six months after the judgments in their favour had become final.
21. The Court reiterates that in cases of non-enforcement six months run from the date of execution of the judgment (see Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, No. 38305/02, § 27, 17 March 2005). In the cases at hand, on the dates of their introduction the respective judgments either had not been enforced, as in cases of Mrs Sadchikova and Mrs Gurova (cases No. 13570/06 and 13576/06) or less than six months elapsed from the date of their full enforcement, as in the case of Mrs Sedykh (case No. 13574/06). The objection is accordingly dismissed.
2. Exhaustion of the domestic remedies
22. The Government claimed that all the five applications were inadmissible, since the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, such as a negligence complaint against the respondent authorities or bailiffs, a claim for non-pecuniary damages, and adjustment for the cost of living.
23. The Court finds that the applicants had no remedies satisfying the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. A complaint about the authorities' negligence would have been ineffective, since it would yield a declaratory judgment that would reiterate what was in any event evident from the original judgment: the State was to honour its debt. Such new judgment would not bring the applicants closer to their desired goal, that is the actual payment of the judicial award or, if appropriate, compensation for late payment (see {Jasiuniene} v. Lithuania (dec.), No. 41510/98, 24 October 2000; Plotnikovy v. Russia, No. 43883/02, § 16, 24 February 2005). A claim for non-pecuniary damages has not been shown to be sufficiently certain in practice so as to offer the applicants reasonable prospects of success as required by the Convention (see Wasserman v. Russia (No. 2), No. 21071/05, §§ 51 - 58, 10 April 2008). An adjustment for the cost of living was equally inadequate because it did not compensate non-pecuniary damage. It follows that the complaints cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
3. Objection as regards the applicants' victim status
and request for the striking the application by Mrs
and Ms Pisarevy out of the list
24. The Government submitted that the Mrs Sedykh, Mrs Gurova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev had lost their status as victims, because the judgments had been enforced fully, and because the applicants had refused settlement offers, with an intention to obtain higher
> 1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
