CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sF5107D2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 2386/11 Rafik HOVHANNISYAN against Armenia lodged on 28 December 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Rafik Hovhannisyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Margaryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a former employee of a State Revenue Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”). By an order of the Head of the Committee of 23 February 2009 the applicant was dismissed from his job. On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action against the Committee requesting reinstatement in his job and payment for forced absence up to the day of reinstatement. On 27 July 2009 the Administrative Court found for the applicant. It decided, in particular, to declare void the order of 23 February 2009. Moreover, it ordered the applicant’s reinstatement in his previous position and awarded him compensation for lost earnings up to the day of reinstatement and interest calculated on the amount of unpaid salary. The Committee lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Administrative Court. On 16 September 2009 the Court of Cassation decided to return the appeal so the judgment of 27 July 2009 became final. It appears from the case file that the applicant was paid for his forced absence only until 16 September 2009, the day on which the judgment of the Administrative Court became final. Between April and November 2010 the applicant lodged several claims seeking to have criminal proceedings instituted for non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. All his claims were dismissed by the investigating authorities. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Code of Civil Procedure According to Section 14, a judicial act which has come into effect is mandatory for all state bodies, local self-government bodies, their officials, legal entities and citizens and is subject to execution throughout the territory of the Republic of Armenia. 2.     Law on compulsory enforcement of judicial acts According to Section 71, decisions taken by compulsory enforcement officers within the scope of their competences shall be binding on all state bodies, local self-government bodies, officials, organisations and citizens and shall be subject to execution throughout the territory of the Republic of Armenia. COMPLAINT Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about the non ‑ enforcement of the Administrative Court’s judgment of 27 July 2009.   QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES Was the Administrative Court’s judgment of 27 July 2009 fully enforced? If not, was the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour compatible with his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?