CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 novembre 2005

.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. 80 November 2005 Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.) - 41145/02 Decision 10.11.2005 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Alleged delay in the enforcement of final judgments: inadmissible   The applicant, who was accused of bribery and corruption, was subsequently acquitted of the charges and granted damages for wrongful prosecution. He initially forwarded the writs of execution to the Federal Treasury, instead of to the Ministry of Finance, as provided under domestic law. He corrected the error and sent the writs to the Ministry in February 2002. The money due pursuant to the judgments in his favour granting him damages was transferred to his bank account in February 2003. Inadmissible under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The judgments in favour of the applicant had been fully executed within a period of one year from the date on which he had properly applied for their enforcement. Hence, they had been enforced within a “reasonable time” and there had been no interference with the applicant’s property rights: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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