CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 août 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s64AB6D68 { width:9.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5590427C { width:159.84pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2F7F4368 { width:167.84pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6674DD39 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 38127/07 Maksim Alekseyevich VLASOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   August 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Erik Møse,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren C. Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the pilot-judgment in the case of Burdov v.   Russia   (no.   2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009), Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates shown in the Appendix, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations submitted by the applicants in reply, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are three Russian nationals, whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are shown in the Appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant was awarded a compensation for wrongful criminal prosecution. The second applicant was awarded monthly payments to be made by the Russian Social Insurance Fund for professional disease and a fine for the failure to make the respective payments in time. The third applicant, being a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, was awarded various social security benefits to be paid monthly and arrears in payment of such compensations during several preceding years. The enforcement of the judgments in favour of the applicants in the parts related to the payments of the lump sums was delayed. Details of the judgments are shown in the Appendix. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained that by reason of the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour, their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 had been violated. THE LAW The Court will examine the complaints regarding the delayed enforcement of the judgments under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, the relevant parts of which read as follows: 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 Court reiterates at the outset that as from 4 May 2009, the date on which the pilot judgment in Burdov (no. 2) (cited above) became final, it adjourned the adversarial proceedings on all applications lodged with the Court in which the applicants complained of non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by State authorities pending the adoption of domestic remedial measures. However, such adjournment is without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case (ibid., §   146). The Court also notes that the present cases were communicated to the respondent State on 6 May 2013 with a view to their settlement in line with the above-mentioned pilot judgment. The Government argued in response, however, that the complaints were inadmissible because the domestic judgments had been enforced within a reasonable time. The applicants maintained their complaints. 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, it will first look at the time it took the authorities to execute the judgment, the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, and the nature of the award (see Raylyan v.   Russia , no.   22000/03, §   31, 15 February 2007). In the present applications, the period of enforcement was less than a year. Having regard to this fact and the Court’s case-law in similar cases, and taking into account the other circumstances of the present cases, the Court considers that this period did not fall short of the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, Belkin and Others v.   Russia   (dec.), nos.   14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009). It follows that the complaints regarding the delayed enforcement of the judgments are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. In applications nos. 38127/07 and 40954/07 the applicants also made other complaints, relying on various Articles of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Søren C. Prebensen   Khanlar Hajiyev   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix       No   Application no.   Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Judgment of Binding on Enforced on   Period   38127/07 20/06/2007 Maksim Alekseyevich VLASOV 08/08/1979 Arkhangelsk   05/02/2008 Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk 17/03/2008 08/07/2008 3 months 22 days   40954/07 28/08/2007 Yelena Yevlogiyevna CHEKULAYEVA 01/08/1950 Kaliningrad   08/06/2007 Central District Court of Chita 15/08/2007 10/06/2008 9 months and 26 days   16090/08 05/03/2008 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SHOKOV 29/07/1959 Gubkin   02/08/2007 Gubkinskiy Town Court of the Belgorod Region 25/09/2007 07/07/2008 9 months and 12 days