FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41145/02
by Gennadiy Yuryevich PRESNYAKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
10 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 November 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Gennadiy Yuryevich Presnyakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Voronezh. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. A. Shukurov, a lawyer practising in Voronezh. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his acquittal
The applicant worked as a doctor in a State medical institution. On an unspecified date the applicant was accused of bribery and corruption. By first instance judgment of 6 December 2000 the Voronezh Regional Court fully acquitted the applicant. On 5 March 2001 the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia and came into force.
2. Proceedings for damages against the State
Thereafter the applicant brought two sets of proceedings against the State, claiming damages for the wrongful prosecution.
a. Proceedings for compensation of non-pecuniary damage
On 22 November 2001 the Central District Court of the town of Voronezh (“the District Court”) examined and granted his action for
non-pecuniary damages. The applicant was awarded RUR 150,000 to be paid by the Ministry of Finance. This judgment came into force on
3 December 2001.
b. Proceedings for compensation of pecuniary damage
By judgment of 11 January 2002 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages and ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay him RUR 65,118.45. The judgment came into force on
23 January 2002.
c. Enforcement proceedings
On 17 December 2001 the District Court issued the applicant with the writ of execution in the respect of the judgment of 22 November 2001. On 16 January 2002 he forwarded this writ and supporting documents to a local department of the Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance (Управление Федерального Казначейства Министерства финансов РФ по Воронежской области, “the Federal Treasury”).
On 31 January 2002 the applicant obtained the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 11 January 2002 and on the same date he forwarded the writ and supporting documents to the Federal Treasury.
In February 2002 the Federal Treasury returned both writs and the documents to the applicant without enforcement. They stated, in particular, that under the legislation in force execution writs issued against the State should be submitted directly to the Ministry of Finance (see the relevant domestic law section below).
The applicant followed the instruction and on 12 February 2002 he applied to the said Ministry for enforcement. The writs and supporting documents reached the Ministry on 13 March 2002.
It appears that the applicant also unsuccessfully applied for enforcement of the judgments in his favour to the bailiffs.
In February 2003 the money due pursuant to the judgments of
22 November 2001 and 11 January 2002 were transferred to the applicant’s bank account.
B. Relevant domestic law
Section 128 of the Federal Law on Federal Budget for 2002 and Section 122 of the Federal Law on Federal Budget for 2003 provides that writs of execution in respect of the claims arising out of unlawful actions or inactions of State bodies should be submitted directly to the Ministry of Finance and that the bailiffs are not authorised to carry out the enforcement of such writs.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the authorities had refused to enforce the judgments of 22 November 2001 and 11 January 2002.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the non-execution of the judgments of 22 November 2001 and 11 January 2002. He alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provided, insofar as relevant, as follows:
Article 6 of the Convention
“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 ... .”
The Government submitted that both judgments referred to by the applicant had been enforced, that the delay in enforcement had not been excessive and that the application should therefore be declared manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.
The applicant maintained his complaints.
At the outset the Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the judgments in question were executed in full. The Court further recalls that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III). Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, e.g.,
Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, § 37, 23 October 2003) and to the fact that both judgments were fully executed within a period of one year from the date on which the applicant had properly applied for their enforcement, the Court finds that the judgments were enforced within a “reasonable time” and that there was no interference with the applicant’s property rights in this respect.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy