FIRST SECTION

CASE OF AYRAPETYAN v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 21198/05)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 June 2007

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ayrapetyan v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
	Mr	 President,
	Mr	
	Mrs	
	Mr	
	Mrs	
	Mr	
	Mr	 judges,
and Mr  , Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 21198/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Edgar Rubikovich Ayrapetyan (“the applicant”), on 18 April 2005.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr K. Ilyin, a human rights activist. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3.  The applicant alleged that the State had failed to honour a judgment debt.
4.  On 6 September 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning non-enforcement to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the Krasnodar Region. He is a retired military officer.
6.  On 12 May 2004 the Military Court of the Sochi Garrison allowed the applicant's claims against his former military unit and awarded him 215,245.76 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 6,250 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later.
7.  On 29 May 2004 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' department of the Ministry of Justice.
8.  The bailiffs' department could not decide which bailiff would have territorial jurisdiction over the military unit deployed in Abkhazia, Georgia. Instead, on 7 July 2004 it sent the writ directly to the debtor. The writ was lost by the post.
9.  The bailiffs asked the court to issue a duplicate of the writ of execution. On 3 March 2005 the Military Court of the Sochi Garrison issued the applicant with a duplicate.
10.  On 17 March 2005 the applicant submitted the duplicate to the Sochi department of the Federal Treasury which sent it to the debtor.
11.  On 13 September 2005 the applicant received the judgment debt.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
12.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment 12 May 2004 was not enforced in good time. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002‑III). The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time... by [a]... tribunal...”
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...”
13.  The Government submitted that the judgment in the applicant's favour had been fully enforced. The delay in the enforcement had been attributable to the applicant who had procrastinated in submitting the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury which was the competent agency to enforce the judgment. Moreover, he had indicated incomplete bank details, causing thereby a further delay.
14.  The applicant maintained his claims. He indicated that he had submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs who had lost it. It had taken the domestic authorities ten months to issue a duplicate writ of execution. Therefore, at least ten months of the delay had been attributable to the authorities.
A.  Admissibility
15.  The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
16.  The Court observes that on 12 May 2004 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour against his former military unit. However, it remained unenforced until 13 September 2005, that is for almost a year and four months.
17.  A delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances. It remains therefore to be determined whether the delay was such as to amount to a breach of the applicant's right to benefit from the judgment debt (see Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. , 8 July 2004). The Court notes that the applicant promptly submitted the writ of execution to bailiffs' department. The Government claimed that the bailiffs were not competent to enforce the judgment against the military unit and that the applicant should have submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. Even assuming that the documents were submitted incorrectly through the applicant's fault, the Court notes that the bailiffs did not inform the applicant about his mistake and did not return the writ of execution to him so that he could resubmit it to the competent agency. Instead, they sent the writ to the debtor which resulted in its being lost. It was only ten months later that the court issued a duplicate writ. No justification was offered for that delay.
18.  Upon receipt of the duplicate the applicant submitted it to the Federal Treasury without undue delay. However, it took the Federal Treasury another six months to effect the payment. The Court accepts that a certain delay was caused by the applicant's failure to indicate his bank details correctly. However, having regard to the overall delay in the enforcement – a substantial period being attributable to the authorities, - the Court finds that the judgment in the applicant's favour was not enforced within the “reasonable time”.
19.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002‑III).
20.  Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing for months to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities prevented him from receiving the money he could reasonably have expected to receive.
21.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
22.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
23.  By letter of 8 December 2005, the Court invited the applicant's representative to submit claims for just satisfaction. He did not submit any such claim. In these circumstances, the Court makes no award under Article 41.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Declares the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;

3.  Decides not to make an award under Article 41 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Søren Christos  
	Registrar	President