European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 5836/05
by Vladimir Nikolayevich ALEKSEYEV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 December 2004,

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 Vladimir Nikolayevich Alekseyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Ivanovo, a town in the Ivanovo Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 bailiff. In February 2002 (according to the applicant) or January 2003 (according to the Government) the applicant sued his employer, the Ministry of Justice, for unpaid night shifts and overtime.

On 16 October 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit 4 of the Frunzenskiy District of Ivanovo ordered the Ministry to recalculate the applicant’s salary from 2000, to pay arrears, and to amend the applicant’s contract.

On 4 December 2003 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo upheld this judgment on appeal and the judgment became binding. It was gradually enforced by 22 December 2004.

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.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. It had been out of time, since more than six months had passed from the final decision (4 December 2003) to the date of introduction of the application (12 December 2004). In any event, the length of the trial had been reasonable.

The applicant maintained his complaint. The complaint had been made in time, because six months should run from 22 December 2004, the date of the judgment’s full enforcement. The length of the trial had been unreasonable.

The Court cannot accept that the period of enforcement should fall within the period to be taken into consideration in respect of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings (see Malama v. Greece, no. 43622/98, § 34 ECHR 2001 II), especially since the applicant makes a separate complaint about the non-enforcement proper. It follows that the six-month time-limit should be counted from the date of the final domestic decision (see Dunayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 70142/01, 2 February 2006). In the case at hand, as the Government rightly point out, more than six months had passed from the final domestic decision to the date of introduction.

It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Article 6 § 1

“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 this complaint was inadmissible. The period of enforcement had been reasonable. The payment of the arrears had been somewhat delayed for objective reasons: the Ministry of Justice had had to obtain funds through complex budgetary mechanisms; the judgment had not specified the amount of the arrears and had had to be clarified. Besides, the applicant had failed to exhaust such domestic remedies as a claim for non-pecuniary damages and a claim for an adjustment for the cost of living.

The applicant maintained his complaint. The enforcement of the judgment had lasted unreasonably long. The applicant had not delayed the proceedings. There had been no effective domestic remedy.

With regard to domestic remedies, the Court notes that a claim for non-pecuniary damages has not been shown to be sufficiently certain in practice so as to offer the applicant reasonable prospects of success as required by the Convention. An adjustment for the cost of living would be equally inadequate because it would not compensate non-pecuniary damage. It follows that this complaint cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

With regard to the substance of the complaint, 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 2002 III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).

In the case at hand, the period of enforcement was one year: from the day when the judgment became binding to the day when it was fully enforced. In the circumstances of the present case, this period was compatible with the requirements of the Convention.

It follows that this complaint 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