CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 février 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. 72 February 2005 Poznakhirina v. Russia - 25964/02 Judgment 24.2.2005 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Award of welfare payments not enforced for lack of public funds: violation   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Award of welfare payments not enforced for lack of public funds: violation   Facts : The applicant brought proceedings against the Chief Department of Finance of the Voronezh Region to claim welfare payments to which she was entitled in respect of her child. In 2000, after the Town Court had awarded the applicant a certain amount, an enforcement order was issued and sent to the bailiff service.   The bailiff eventually terminated the execution proceedings, as the debtor had no sufficient funds. The District Court granted the applicant’s request to resume enforcement proceedings, having dismissed the bailiff’s argument that an action against the Administration of the Voronezh Region was necessary to secure execution of the judgment. The sum awarded has not been paid to the applicant. Law : Article   6 § 1 – The Court noted that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had remained unenforced in its entirety for almost five years. By failing for such a substantial period of time to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judicial decisions in the present case, the Russian authorities had deprived the provisions of Article   6 § 1 of their useful effect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   1 Protocol No. 1 – By failing to comply with the judgment in the applicant’s favour the national authorities had prevented the applicant from receiving her award. The Government had not advanced any justification for this interference and the lack of funds could not justify such an omission. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court awarded the applicant RUR   3,132 in respect of pecuniary damage (interest).   © 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