CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 septembre 2021

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4C1364C3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s21F79B08 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20812/08 Dmitriy Sergeyevich ALEKSANDROV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   September 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14   February 2008, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention The applicant complained that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article 6 “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 Court notes from the outset that the parties do not agree as to whether the judgment in the applicant’s favour has been enforced. The Government argued that the relevant enforcement proceedings were terminated once the judgment was executed. The applicant, however, claimed that the judgment remained unenforced and presented his version as to how the national authorities should have proceeded to enforce the judgment in his favour. In this connection, the Court reiterates that domestic courts are better placed to ascertain the proper method of enforcement and to decide the issue of whether and when full and appropriate compliance with a judgment has been secured and that its role in respect of such matters is essentially subsidiary to that of the domestic authorities (see, among the leading authorities, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §   173, 1 July 2014, and Sirotin v. Russia (dec.), no. 38712/03, 14   September 2006). The Court notes that the applicant did not challenge the lawfulness of the bailiff’s decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings and that the said decision came into force and remains final to date. Accordingly, it accepts the Government’s argument and finds it established that the judgment of 15   July 2007 was fully enforced on 25   April 2008. The Court also considers that the period of delay in the enforcement wholly attributable to the authorities in the present case was compatible with the Convention requirements (compare Gerasimov and Others , cited above, §§   169 and 171). It follows that these complaints should be rejected for being manifestly ill‑founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention Lastly, the parties were invited to comment whether the applicant had had an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaint within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found above that the applicant’s complaints about the alleged non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour are manifestly ill-founded, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in his cases. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 30 September 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 and   Article   13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Domestic order (in euros) 20812/08 14/02/2008 Dmitriy Sergeyevich ALEKSANDROV 1973 Amur Regional Court, 15/08/2007   15/08/2007   25/04/2008 8 month(s) and 11 day(s)   "... [the Housing Committee] is to ensure [the applicant’s] participation in the State housing certificates’ program ..."