Information Note on the Court’s case-law 45
August-September 2002
Timofeyev v. Russia (dec.) - 58263/00
Decision 5.9.2002 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Non-enforcement of final judgment: admissible
In 1981 criminal charges were brought against the applicant for disseminating anti-Soviet propaganda. A search was carried out at his home and various assets were confiscated. The applicant was later found not guilty by reason of insanity and placed in a mental hospital. He was eventually released in 1986. In 1992 the Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a statement acknowledging that he had been unlawfully persecuted by the State. Between 1995 and 1997 he made several unsuccessful requests to recover the confiscated assets. In 1996 he brought claims for repossession and damages. In July 1998 the District Court partly granted his claims and ordered that he be paid compensation for the confiscated assets; the judgment was upheld on appeal. In February 1999 the applicant sought the enforcement of the judgment of July 1998 by writ of execution. The enforcement proceedings having failed to make any progress, he started proceedings against the bailiff for professional negligence. In July 1999 the District Court dismissed his complaint, holding that the proceedings had lawfully been stayed by the bailiff on the basis that supervisory proceedings had been instituted by the public prosecutor against the judgment of July 1998. Pursuant to domestic law, enforcement proceedings could be held in abeyance pending supervisory review. The enforcement proceedings were stayed several times for this reason. In April 2001, following a supervisory review request, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of July 1998 and the subsequent appeal judgment upholding it. After a new examination, the District Court made a new award in compensation for his assets and legal costs. His claims for repossession and non-pecuniary damages were dismissed. The applicant’s appeal was rejected.
Admissible under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicant complained about the impossibility of obtaining execution of a final judgment against the State, partly because supervisory review proceedings prevented enforcement. He also complained that his dispute had not been settled within a reasonable time. The Government argued that after the judgment of July 1998 had been quashed a new examination of the case had been ordered and that domestic proceedings were still pending. In certain circumstances, the fact that proceedings are pending on the national level may be an obstacle to the examination of Article 6 complaints, especially in criminal cases, where the conformity of a trial with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 must be assessed on the basis of the trial as a whole. This consideration, however, could not be said to apply to the issues raised by the present case, since it was not clear to what extent the quashing of the judgment which entitled the applicant to certain pecuniary damages would have any bearing on the fact that he had not obtained enforcement of the judgment over the preceding two years. Moreover, after the Government had submitted their observations, the applicant’s case had been re-examined and a new final judgment had been issued, but it did not appear that this new judgment had been enforced. Therefore, the Government’s objection that the application was premature had to be dismissed.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy