represent two aspects of the same general concept, namely the right to a court. The Court observes that the judgments of 11 December 2001 were quashed shortly after having become binding and enforceable. Having regard to its finding of violations of Article 6 on account of the quashing of these judgments in supervisory-review proceedings, the Court finds that it is not necessary in these circumstances to examine separately the issue of their non-enforcement by the authorities (see Boris Vasilyev v. Russia, No. 30671/03, §§ 41 - 42, 15 February 2007; and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, Nos. 30672/03 et al, §§ 67 - 68, 3 May 2007).
28. The Court considers that the situation is different in respect of the delayed enforcement of the judgments of 13 and 20 December 2001 in favour of S. Panchenko (see paragraph 9 above). Indeed, these judgments became binding and enforceable but remained unenforced for longer periods of time. The Court will thus examine separately S. Panchenko's complaint about the delay in enforcement of these judgments.
A. Admissibility
29. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
30. The Government referred inter alia to the complex multilevel procedure of execution of judgments against the State and its entities and to the insufficient funding which delayed in 2001 - 2004 the execution of more than 96000 judgments, including those in the applicant's favour.
31. The applicant maintained his complaint.
32. 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 200-III). The reasonableness of such delay is to be determined having regard in particular to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, the amount and the nature of court award (see Raylyan v. Russia, No. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
33. The Court observes that the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 in favour of S. Panchenko became binding and enforceable on 25 December 2001 and remained unenforced until 3 April 2006, i.e. during more than 4 years and 3 months. The judgment of 20 December 2001 in his favour became binding and enforceable on 31 December 2001 and remained unenforced until 4 April 2003 i.e. during more than 1 year and 3 months.
34. In the light of the Court's established case-law, such long delays appear at the outset incompatible with the requirement to enforce the judgments within a reasonable time. The Government provided no argument allowing the Court to come to a different conclusion in the present case.
35. The Court notes in particular that the enforcement of the present judgments required a simple payment of monetary awards to the applicant and thus was not in itself of any complexity. The Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov, cited above, § 35). Nor can the complexity of the domestic enforcement procedure relieve the State of its obligation under the Convention to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time. It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that the competent authorities can meet their obligation in this regard (see mutatis mutandis Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], No. 35382/97, § 24, ECHR 2000-IV Frydlender v. France [GC], No. 30979/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-VII).
36. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that these delays in enforcement were unreasonable
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
