CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 mars 2018

.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 } .sCE438D69 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:11.6pt; 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 } .sE2BDF40E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:left } .s12FD4E6 { width:170.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 29923/08 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KUDELYA against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   March 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 May 2008, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kudelya was born in 1957 and lives in Rostov-on-Don. He was represented by Mr S. Zaytsev, a lawyer practising in the town of Fryazino. The applicant’s complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decision and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that, for the reasons stated below, the application is inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the application was lodged on 15   May   2008, that is to say more than six months after the enforcement proceedings in respect of the final judgment (as indicated in the appended table) had been terminated on 23 March 2006. The Court observes that, as follows from the presented materials, the enforcement proceedings were terminated partly because the monetary compensation had been paid to the applicant in full and partly because the enforcement of the judgment no longer was possible in view of the material change of the applicant’s individual situation, such as his discharge from the army on 23   March 2006. Accordingly, the Court finds that 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 29 March 2018. Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Domestic order     29923/08 15/05/2008 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kudelya   Zaytsev Sergey Yuryevich Fryazino Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison, 27/02/2004   10/03/2004   23/03/2006 2 year(s) and 14 day(s)   "... the command of the military unit to provide [the applicant] with 386 days of leave, to make changes in the applicant’s personal records and pay monetary compensation