CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC95ED60 { width:188.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20432/11 Zayndi Isayevich TESAYEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   March 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, 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 Zayndi Isayevich Tesayev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Gograchi, Shatoy region. He was represented before the Court by Mr I.Y. Timishev, a lawyer practising in Nalchik. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation tо 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. In 2001 the applicant took part in several antiterrorist military operations in Chechnya. On 24   April 2003 he successfully sued the Military Commander of Shatoyskiy Region and obtained a judgment awarding him 400,000   Russian roubles as additional remuneration. This judgment was not appealed against and became final on 5   May 2003. On 15   February 2005 the applicant submitted five writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation (“the Ministry of Finance”). According to the applicant, on 10   April 2006 the Ministry of Finance returned the writs of execution stating that they should be submitted to the local branch of the Federal Treasury. On 27   August 2010 the applicant’s representative applied to the Ministry of Finance requesting information about the relevant financial authority to which the writs of execution should be submitted. On 10   September 2010 the Ministry of Finance refused to provide this information to the applicant’s representative. On 17   October 2010 the applicant lodged an application with the Regional Military Court of the North Caucasus claiming compensation for the non-enforcement of the judgment of 24   April 2003. On 15   November 2010 the Regional Military Court of the North Caucasus returned the application stating that on 9   October 2007 the Presidium of the Regional Military Court of the North Caucasus had quashed by way of supervisory review the judgment of 24   April 2003 and dismissed the applicant’s claims. B.     Relevant domestic law According to Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Proceedings Act of the Russian Federation, as in force at the material time, the parties could apply for the execution of a judgment within three years from the date on which that judgment became final. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final domestic judgment in his favour. THE LAW The Government argued that the quashing of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour took place on 9   October 2007 and that he was duly summoned to that hearing, whereas the application was lodged with the Court more than three years later. The application thus should be declared inadmissible since it was lodged with the Court outside of the six-month time-limit provided for by the Convention. The applicant contested the Government’s argument claiming that he had never been informed about the hearing of 9 October 2007. He further indicated that he only became aware of the quashing on 15 November 2010 and consequently applied to the Court within six months from that date. In the present case it is not necessary to examine whether the applicant had indeed been informed about the supervisory review hearing because his complaint is in any event inadmissible. The Court notes in this respect that almost two years elapsed before the applicant first submitted the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. After the latter returned his submission on 10 April 2006, it took the applicant another four years to contact again the Ministry of Finance whereas the Russian legislation on enforcement sets a three-year time-limit for the execution of a domestic final judgment. The applicant failed to provide any explanation to justify why he had remained passive for such a long period of time without taking any reasonable steps to obtain the execution of a judgment in his favour. The Court thus considers that even assuming that the applicant had not been informed about the hearing of 9 October 2007, he should have shown a greater degree of diligence and found out before 2010 that the judgment in his favour was quashed back in 2007. In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicant’s ground for not lodging his application earlier, could not suspend the running of the six-month period in this case. It follows that this application was introduced out of the six-month time ‑ limit 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 7 April 2016.   Marialena Tsirli   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President