European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KISELEV v Russia - 42814/04 [2010] ECHR 1484 (16 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1484.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1484
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
42814/04
by Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KISELEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 September 2010 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 19 October 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 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Kiselev, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Ivanovo. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by 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.
The applicant is a retired military serviceman. By the judgment of 18 September 2001, which became final on 1 October 2001, the Spassk-Dalniy Garrison Military Court awarded the applicant 38,261.20 Russian Roubles (RUB) against his military unit. On 26 September 2002 the judgment had been fully enforced.
On 3 September 2002 the Military Court of the Far East Military Circuit in the final instance dismissed the applicant's another pecuniary claim against the military unit.
On 27 March 2003 the Spassk-Dalniy Garrison Military Court ordered the respondent authority to pay the applicant RUB 6,434 in compensation for delayed execution of the judgment of 18 September 2001. The judgment was not appealed against and was enforced on an unspecified date.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the judgment of 18 September 2001 and about the allegedly unfair outcome of the domestic proceedings he had been involved in.
THE LAW
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 submitted that the application had been lodged out of time, the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies and the domestic judgment was executed within reasonable time. The applicant maintained his complaint.
The Court reiterates that in cases of non-enforcement six months run from the date of execution of the judgment (see Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 27, 17 March 2005). It is not disputed that the judgment of 18 September 2001 was fully enforced on 26 September 2002. However, the applicant only lodged his application with the Court on 19 October 2004, that is more than six months from the enforcement date.
It follows that the complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the final judgment in the respective proceedings were taken on 18 September 2001, 3 September 2002 and 27 March 2003, that is more than six months before the date of the complaint to the Court.
It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
