European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 39432/05
by Viktor Magometovich TSORIYEV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fisrt Section), sitting on 21 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen , Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2005,

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 Viktor Magometovich Tsoriyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Vladikavkaz, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alaniya (North Ossetia). The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, the former 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.

The applicant is a former officer of the interior. He was discharged in 2002 and was entitled to special retirement conditions.

In 2005 he brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Interior of the North Ossetia claiming the pension arrears and non-pecuniary damages.

On 11 May 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz awarded the applicant 28,221.25 Russian Roubles in arrears and rejected the non-pecuniary claims. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 23 May 2005.

On 9 June 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the local branch of the Ministry of Finance.

On 31 January 2006 the amount awarded by the judgment was transferred to the applicant's bank account.

B. Relevant domestic law

Under section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months. Under section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of Finance must enforce a judgment within three months.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about delayed enforcement of the judgment of 11 May 2005.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about delayed enforcement of the judgment. The Court examined this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, as far as relevant, read as follows:

Article 6

“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 or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The Government argued that the application was inadmissible. They contended that the judgment had been enforced within 7 months and 22 days of receipt of the writ of execution from the applicant. Such delay cannot be said to be unreasonable. They further argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him. He could have lodged a court action against the bailiffs. He also could have claimed adjustment of the judgment debt for the cost of living and asked a domestic court to award him compensation of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the delayed enforcement.

The applicant maintained his complaint. He argued that he should have received the award within two months, as provided by the domestic law, but only obtained execution of the judgment within eight months.

The Court finds that it is not necessary to examine the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies as the complaint about non-enforcement of the judgment of 11 May 2005 is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

The Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the court judgment of 11 May 2005 was executed in full. It 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).

The Court notes that in the present case the judgment in the applicant's favour was enforced within 8 months and 10 days from the date of its entry into force. Such a delay does not appear excessive (see Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005, Inozemtsev v Russia (dec.), no. 874/03, 31 August 2006, and Fedorov and others (dec.), no. 33382/04, 17 January 2008) and is compatible with the Convention requirements.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President