ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 06.10.2005<ДЕЛО ШИЛЯЕВ (shilyayev) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]

one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should describe in detail the procedural guarantees afforded to litigants - proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious - without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6 (see Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002-III, and Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510, § 40).
33. The Court further observes that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1. The applicant should not be prevented from benefiting from the success of the litigation on the ground of alleged financial difficulties experienced by the State (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 35).
34. Turning to the instant case, the Court notes that the judgment of 20 July 2001 remained without enforcement for two years, one month and four days between 11 September 2001 which is the date on which it came into force and 15 October 2003 when the money due was paid to the applicant. It is true that the Ministry of Finance twice rejected his requests for payment on formal grounds. The Court notes however that each time the reason for refusal was an informality of the writ issued by the domestic court and it is difficult to see how and whether at all the resulting delays may be attributable to the applicant. Even assuming that both refusals occurred through the applicant"s own fault, it took the Ministry six months and nineteen days and seven months and twenty-four days respectively to respond to the applicant"s requests. These delays are in flagrant disregard of the respective domestic rules (see § 18 above) which require the Ministry to examine and answer the applications within the five days and the Government failed to advance any arguments to justify them.
35. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that by failing for such a substantial period of time to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judicial decision in the present case, the Russian authorities deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of their useful effect.
36. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
37. The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A No. 301-B, p. 84, § 59). The judgment of 20 July 2001 provided the applicant with enforceable claim, it had become final as no further ordinary appeal laid against it, and enforcement proceedings had been instituted. It follows that the impossibility for the applicant to have the judgment enforced for a substantial period of time constitutes an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as set forth in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
38. By failing to comply with above judgment, the national authorities prevented the applicant from receiving his award. The Government have not advanced any justification for the failure to do so.
39. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
40. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
41. The applicant claimed a just satisfaction of EUR 100,000.
42. The Government considered that the amount claimed was unreasonable and excessive.
43. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the extensive amount of the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it accepts that the applicant must have suffered distress because of the State"s failure timely to enforce the judgment in question and awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
44. The applicant made no claims under this head.
C. Default interest
45. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
1. Declares the complaint about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 20 July 2001 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) be converted into the Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant"s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2005, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
Santiago QUESADA
Deputy Registrar

Международное законодательство »
Читайте также