AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
by Nikolay Borisovich BEREZOVSKIY
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 May 2002,
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 applicant, Mr Nikolay Borisovich Berezovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Tyumen. The respondent Government are 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.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 November 2001 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok upheld the applicant’s action against the Military Commissariat of the Primorye Region (the Commissariat) and awarded him 6,137 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for damage and court expenses. The District Court also held that the Commissariat should sign a contract with a commercial provider of communication services undertaking the obligation to pay 50% of monthly costs for phone services provided to the applicant. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 17 December 2001.
In August 2002 the applicant complained to the Frunzenskiy District Court about the Commissariat’s failure to enforce the judgment.
On 26 August 2002 the Frunzenskiy District Court found that the Commissariat’s inactivity was unlawful. The judgment was not appealed against.
On 16 September 2002 enforcement proceedings were closed as the Commissariat had paid RUB 6,137 to the applicant. However, a week later the proceedings were re-opened because the payment only constituted a partial enforcement of the judgment and because the Commissariat had not yet signed a contract with the communication services provider.
According to the Government, on 18 September 2002 the Commissariat paid to the applicant RUB 611 as a 50 % compensation of monthly costs for phone services provided to the applicant.
On 1 November 2002 the Commissariat signed the contract with the communication services provider and thus fully enforced the judgment of 14 November 2001 as upheld on 17 December 2001.
The applicant complained under Articles 6, 14 and 17 of the Convention that the final judgment in his favour remained unenforced for almost a year and that during that time he was unable to enjoy the fruits of the successful litigation.
The applicant complained about the State’s failure to enforce the judgments of 14 November 2001 as upheld on 17 December 2001. The complaint is to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which, insofar as relevant, provide as follows:
“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 Government asserted the delay in enforcement was reasonable.
The applicant maintained his complaints. He noted that the judgment was fully enforced in September 2002.
The Court observes that in the present case the judgment was enforced in full within 10 months and 15 days from the date on which it became binding and enforceable. This period does not appear unreasonable in the light of the Convention requirements. In many previous cases similar delays were not considered to be excessive (see Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004; Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005; Inozemtsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 874/03, 31 August 2006). There are no special circumstances which would allow reaching a different conclusion in this case.
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
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis