CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 avril 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 85 April 2006 Sukhobokov v. Russia - 75470/01 Judgment 13.4.2006 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Non-enforcement of a final judgment which was later quashed following the adoption of a ministerial instruction giving a different interpretation of the relevant law: violation   Facts : The applicant brought proceedings against his local labour and social development authority, arguing that his pension should be increased. A judgment was rendered in his favour which became final in December 1999. The judgment was not enforced due to lack of funds from the State budget. The judgment was finally quashed in September 2000 on account of the discovery of a new circumstance, namely a ministerial instruction which was issued after the judgment had entered into force and which interpreted the Pensions Law in a way different to that in the judgment. Law : The Court reiterated that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt. It was conceivable that statutory pensions regulations were liable to change and a judicial decision could not be relied on as a guarantee against such changes in the future. However, the enforcement of a final judgment awarding a pension in respect of a period preceding the judgment should be guaranteed. The Court’s task in the present case was not to assess whether the quashing of the judgment as such was compatible with the Convention, but rather whether the quashing was capable of justifying the failure to enforce the judgment. Referring to its findings in a similar case ( Pravednaya v. Russia , no.   69529/01, 18 November 2004), the Court concluded that the quashing of the judgment, which did not respect the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s “right to a court”, could not be accepted as a reason to justify the non-enforcement of the judgment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes