BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Igor Vasilyevich BELAYEV v Russia - 36020/02 [2011] ECHR 631 (22 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/631.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 631 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
36020/02
by Igor Vasilyevich BELAYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 March 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
George
Nicolaou,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia
Laffranque,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 August 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Igor Vasilyevich Belayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Pyatigorsk in Stavropol Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Messrs P. Laptev and G. Matyushkin, the successive Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was a military serviceman.
On 8 June 1999 the Khabarovsk Garrison Military Court (“the Khabarovsk Court”) ruled in the applicant’s favour. It declared certain actions of the Magadan Regional Military Commissioner (“the Regional Commissioner”) unlawful. The Khabarovsk Court further ordered the Regional Commissioner to appoint the applicant to a specific post, to send him for medical examination and to pay him certain monetary sums. The applicant was also granted monetary compensation for the non pecuniary damage caused by the Regional Commissioner’s unlawful actions.
On 30 November 1999 the Khabarovsk Court’s judgment was mainly upheld on appeal by the Far-Eastern Circuit Military Court.
On 8 December 1999 the applicant was appointed to the post pursuant to the judgments in his favour.
The Regional Commissioner invited the applicant to undergo the medical examination on 10 December 1999. The applicant failed to arrive to the hospital of the Magadan Regional Directorate of the Interior for that purpose either on that date or on any date thereafter.
The monetary compensation ordered by the Khabarovsk Court’s judgment of 8 June 1999 was fully paid to the applicant’s account in several tranches in 1999 and 2000.
On 15 November 2001 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court (“the Pyatigorsk Court”) again found for the applicant. It declared the Regional Commissioner’s order on the applicant’s discharge unlawful. The Pyatigorsk Court further ordered the Regional Commissioner to reinstate the applicant, to re-calculate his salary and to pay compensation to him and to give him four days of paid leave. The Pyatigorsk Court’s judgment was upheld on appeal by the North-Caucasian Circuit Military Court on 27 February 2002.
On 30 August 2002 the applicant was formally re-instated by the Regional Commissioner pursuant to the Pyatigorsk Court’s judgment of 15 November 2001. The applicant was informed accordingly by the letter of the acting Regional Commissioner of 3 September 2002. He was also invited to report to the Regional Commissioner’s office in order to comply with other formalities. The documents in question were handed over to the applicant on 16 September 2002.
As the applicant failed to arrive to his office, the Regional Commissioner on 11 February 2003 decided to deposit the monetary award due to the applicant with a bank account which had been opened for that purpose with the Savings Bank of Russia.
On 4 April 2003 the military officials attempted to hand down the corresponding documents to the applicant personally but he refused to take them. In July 2003 the applicant received the documents which had been mailed to him.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Relevant domestic law and practice are summarized, among many other judgments and decisions of the Court, in Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, §§ 33-39, 21 June 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the military courts’ judgments of 8 June 1999 and 15 November 2001 in his favour were not duly enforced in a timely manner.
THE LAW
The Court considers that the applicant’s complaints about the untimely enforcement of two judgments in his favour fall to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
These provisions read, respectively, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
“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.”
The Government maintained that the judgments in the applicant’s favour had been fully enforced in a timely manner.
The applicant maintained his complaints.
The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court secured under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002-III, and Société Cofinfo v. France (dec.), no. 23516/08, 12 October 2010). A delay in execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances but it may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected (see Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 20, 13 January 2005). Reasonableness of that delay will depend on different factors including the applicant’s own behaviour and that of the competent authorities (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant complained about belated enforcement of two judgments rendered in his favour – the Khabarovsk Court’s judgment of 8 June 1999 and the Pyatigorsk Court’s judgment of 15 November 2001.
The judgment of 8 June 1999 which became final on 30 November 1999 ordered three distinct remedies - appointment of the applicant to a specific post, him being sent to undergo medical examination and payment of monetary damages.
As to the appointment of the applicant to the post indicated in the judgment of 8 June 1999, it was effected almost immediately after its entry into force, namely on 8 December 1999. As to the monetary compensation, it was credited to the applicant’s account in several tranches in 1999 and 2000, that is within slightly more than a year after the judgment’s entry into force, a time-period which is not unreasonable in the circumstances, taking into account the uncooperative stance taken by the applicant. As to the medical examination, it appears that although duly notified the applicant failed to present himself to the relevant hospital. It follows therefore that the military authorities duly discharged their obligation to have this part of the judgment of 8 June 1999 enforced.
The judgment of 15 November 2001 which became final on 27 February 2002 ordered three distinct remedies – reinstatement of the applicant and him being provided with the monetary compensation and paid leave of certain duration.
As to the reinstatement of the applicant ordered by the judgment of 15 November 2001, it was effected slightly more than six months after its entry into force, what is not unreasonable in the circumstances. As to the rest, it is clear from the facts of the case that the military authorities tried, albeit in vain, to get in touch with the applicant. In any event, the military authorities proceeded to deposit the sums due to the applicant in a special bank account. The Court therefore does not find any unjustifiable delay in the enforcement of this judgment.
It follows that both judgments in the applicants’ favour were enforced within a reasonable time-frame and in so far as it was possible in view of the applicant’s behaviour.
The Court concludes that this application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President