THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

6. On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts delivered judgmentsaccording to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour. The judgments became final and enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time because of the authorities’ failure to take specific budgetary or regulatory measures, because of the introduction of bans on the attachment and sale of property belonging to State-owned or controlled companies.

7. With the exception of applications no. 25358/06,1777/08, 20895/09 and 64583/09 in which the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced on 2 June 2011, 18 April 2008, 9 July 2009 and on 18 January 2011 the domestic decisions in all other applications have not been enforced in full.

8. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

9. In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

10. The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. They relied on, expressly or in substance, Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] tribunal ...”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

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...

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

11. The Court notes that the applicants’ above complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

12. The Court finds that the judgments in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible

13. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy NikolayevichIvanov, cited above, §§ 56-58 and 66-70), the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. It also considers that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage created by such non-enforcement.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

14. Some of the applicants raised other complaints under the Convention which the Court has carefully examined. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

15. It follows that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

Date: 2014-12-29; view: 963