FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 23748/06
by Eduard Nikolayevich KOLESNIKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Nina Vajić,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Elisabeth Steiner,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Dean Spielmann,
	Sverre Erik Jebens, judges
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 April 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Eduard Nikolayevich Kolesnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Syzran, the Samara Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matuyshkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant sued local welfare authorities for an increase of the disability benefits due to him.
By judgment of 6 June 2003, as upheld on appeal on 21 July 2003, the Syzran Town Court of the Samara Region (the Town Court) ordered the authorities to pay the applicant a lump sum of 259,462 Russian roubles (RUB) and to increase the monthly and yearly disability payments in line with the relevant domestic legislation.
On 19 March 2004 the lump sum was paid to the applicant in full but he continued to receive monthly payments in the amount lower than awarded.
On 17 June 2004 the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court (the Presidium) quashed the judgment of 6 June 2003 on supervisory review and remitted the case for a new examination at the first instance court.
On 16 December 2004 the Town Court re-examined the case and granted the applicant’s claims. On 28 February 2005 the Samara Regional Court upheld these findings on appeal.
On 8 September 2005 the Presidium again quashed the judicial decisions of 16 December 2004 and 28 February 2005 by way of the supervisory review proceedings and ordered a fresh examination of the case.
By judgment of 8 December 2005, as upheld by the appeal decision of 27 February 2006, the Town Court allowed the applicant’s action in part.
The applicant applied for the supervisory review of the two latest judicial decisions.
On 16 December 2006 the Presidium granted his application, quashed the judgments of 8 December 2005 and 27 February 2006 in supervisory review proceedings and ordered that the case be examined afresh by the court of the first instance.
On 12 February 2007 the Town Court in the new round of court proceedings examined and granted the applicant’s claim. It ordered the local welfare authority to pay the applicant a lump sum of RUB 653,255 in arrears in respect of various disability benefits and recalculated and further increased the monthly and yearly payments due to him.
On 22 February 2007 the judgment entered into force. According to the Government, it was fully executed on 3 December 2007.
COMPLAINTS
Referring to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention the applicant complained that he was unable to obtain the amount awarded to him by the judgment of 6 June 2003.
He further complained under the above provisions that the sums granted to him on 12 February 2007 were insufficient.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was unable to obtain the full amount of the court award of 6 June 2003. The Court will examine these issues under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... 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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Government submitted that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded, because the judgment of 6 June 2003 had been fully executed on 19 March 2004, that is within less than one year from its entry into force. The applicant maintained his claim.
The Court reiterates at the outset that as from 4 May 2009, the date on which the judgment in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) became final, it adjourned the adversarial proceedings on all applications lodged with the Court in which the applicants complained of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by State authorities pending the adoption of domestic remedial measures. However, such adjournment is without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 146, 15 January 2009).
Turning to the Government’s submission concerning the full enforcement of the judgment, the Court observes that, as it transpires from the case file, the payment of 19 March 2004 was only made in respect of the awarded lump sum and constituted only partial execution of the judgment. The crux of the applicant’s complaint was, in fact, the authorities’ failure to increase the monthly payments as ordered by the judgment of 6 June 2003, and there is nothing in the case file to suggest that such increase took place following that judgment.
However, the Court does not consider it necessary to assess this aspect, because in any event the present complaint is inadmissible for the following reasons.
The Court observes that the judgment of 6 June 2003 providing the applicant with the enforceable claim in respect of monthly payments remained unenforced until its annulment on 17 June 2004 by way of the supervisory review proceedings. It was due to the quashing that the award in the applicant’s favour ceased to be binding and enforceable (see, in so far as relevant, Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 28, 2 April 2009).
It was uncontested by the parties that at the material time the Russian law of civil procedure did not provide for any ordinary appeal against a decision in which the final judgment had been quashed by way of a supervisory review. The Court further notes that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings as in the instant case (see Sitokhova v. Russia (dec.), no. 55609/00, 2 September 2004).
In the present case the quashing by the Presidium took place on 17 June 2004. There is no indication in the file that the applicant was not promptly notified of the Presidium’s decision to annul the judgment of 6 June 2003. However, it was not until 14 April 2006, more than six months after the judgment had been annulled and ceased to be binding and enforceable, that the applicant complained to the Court about his inability to obtain full execution of the award.
It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complained about the insufficiency of the amounts granted to him in the latest round of the domestic proceedings.
The Court recalls that it is not its task to act as an appeal court of “fourth instance” by calling into question the outcome of the domestic proceedings. It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law. As the relevant domestic decisions do not disclose any arbitrary reasoning, the Court considers that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
	André Wampach	Christos Rozakis
	Deputy Registrar	President