compensation from the Court. They argued that Mrs Sadchikova can no longer be regarded as a victim, since she had refused to accept the payment of the judgment debt. They also asked to strike the application by Mr Pisarev and Mrs Pisareva out of the Court's list of cases, because the applicants had refused to settle.
25. The Court reiterates that the mere fact that the authorities comply with the judgment after a substantial delay cannot be viewed as automatically depriving the applicants of their victim status under the Convention (see Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, § 16, 24 February 2005). As regards the case of Mrs Sadchikova, the Court notes that the authorities' attempts to comply with the terms of the judgment took place not earlier than in 2005. There is nothing in her case to suggest that the authorities recognised a violation of her rights and afforded her redress. Nor is there any evidence that she had indeed refused to accept the payment. In such circumstances, the mere attempt to enforce the judgment after a significant delay cannot be regarded as depriving Mrs Sadchikova of her victim status. In respect of the other cases the Court notes that, even assuming that the agreements proposed by the local authorities contained an implicit recognition of a breach of the applicants' Convention rights, each of the applicants refused the terms of the proposed settlement, for which reason such agreements did not give rise to any binding undertakings on the part of the Government. Therefore, the applicants retained their victim status (see Chebotarev v. Russia, No. 23795/02, § 20, 22 June 2006).
26. As regards the request for striking out the application by Mr and Mrs Pisarevy, the Court has earlier refused to strike out cases where applicants refused settlement. The Court will do so in the case at hand, too (see, with further references, Svitich v. Russia, No. 39013/05, § 21, 31 July 2007).
4. Other inadmissibility grounds
27. The Court notes that the applicants' complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
28. As regards the application by Mrs Gurova (case No. 13576/06), the Government submitted that the judgment of 22 February 2000 had been enforced in 2000. They admitted that they were unable to prove the enforcement, and confirmed that the award had been paid to her on 11 July 2007. In respect of all the five applications the Government claimed that the authorities had taken all possible measures to enforce the judgments, which proved unsuccessful due to the debtor's lack of funds. On the other hand, the applicants protracted the enforcement proceedings, because they did not submit the enforcement documents to the competent domestic authorities, either in good time or at all. Mrs Sadchikova (case No. 13570/06) on an unspecified date refused to accept the payment of the judgment debt.
29. The applicants maintained their claims. They submitted that they had obtained enforceable judgments against the State and could not be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have the awards executed.
2. The Court's assessment
30. The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III).
31. As regards the application by Mrs Gurova (case No. 13576/06), the Court notes the Government's submission that there had existed no proof that the judgment in her favour had been enforced in 2000. The Court accordingly finds, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that 11 July 2007 should be considered as the
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 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
