FIRST SECTION

CASE OF BURDOV v. RUSSIA (N o . 2)

( Application no. 33509/04 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 January 2009

FINAL

04/05/2009

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.

In the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President , Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Dean Spielmann , Sverre Erik Jebens , Giorgio Malinverni , George Nicolaou , judges , and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2008 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

4 . On 22 November 2007 the President of the First Section decided to communicate the applicant ’ s complaint to the Gove rnment. I t was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention ) .

5 . O n 3 July 2008 the Chamber decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court, to grant the case priority under Rule 41 and to invite the parties to subm it written observations on the above application . The Chamber furthermore decided to inform the parties that it was considering the suitability of applying a pilot - judgment procedure in the case (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 189-94 and the operative part, ECHR 2004-V, and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC] , no. 35014/97, §§ 231 ‑ 39 and the operative part , ECHR 2006- VIII ). The applicant submitted further observations on 11 August 2008 and the Government on 26 September 2008 .

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

6 . The applicant, Mr Anat oliy Tikhonovich Burdov, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Shakhty , in the Rostov region of the Russian Federation .

7 . On 1 October 1986 the applicant was called up by the military authorities to take part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The applicant was engaged in the operations until 11 January 1987 and, as a result, suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. He is entitled to various social benefits in this connection.

8 . Considering that the competent State authorities failed to pay these benefits in full and in due time, the applicant repeatedly sued the m in domestic courts from 1997 onwards . The courts repeatedly g ranted the applicant ’ s claims but a number of their judgments remain ed unenforced for various periods of time .

A. The Court ’ s judgment of 7 May 2002 in Burdov v. Russia and further developments

1. The Court ’ s findings

9 . On 20 March 2000 the applicant first complained before the Court about non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions (application no. 59498/00 ) . In its judgment of 7 May 2002, the Court found that the Shakhty City Court ’ s decisions of 3 March 1997, 21 May 1999 and 9 March 2000 had remained unenforced who lly or in part at least u ntil 5 March 2001, when the Ministry of Finance took the decision to pay in full the debt owed to the applicant. The Court accordingly held that there had been violations of Article 6 of the Conventio n and of Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 on account of the authorities ’ failure for years to take the necessary measures to comply with these decisions ( see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2002 ‑ III ) .

2 . Resolution ResDH(2004)85 of the Committee of Ministers concerning the Court ’ s judgment of 7 May 2002

10 . Under the terms of Article 46 § 2 of the Conven tion, the Court ’ s judgment of 7 May 2002 in Burdov was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of its execution. The Committee invited the G overnment to inform it of the mea s ures which had been taken in c onsequence of the Court ’ s judgment of 7 May 2002, having regard to the Russia n Federation ’ s obligation under Article 46 § 1 to abide by it . On 22 December 2004 the Committee adopted Resolution ResDH(2004)85 in this case . The measures taken by the Russian authorities were summarised by the Government in the A ppendix to this Resolution:

“ ... With regard to individual measures, the amounts due under the domestic judicial decisions were paid to the applicant on 5 March 2001 . ... Subsequently, a fresh indexation of the monthly allowance was ordered by the Shakhty City Court on 11 July 2003 (final on 1 October 2003). The social authorities continue to comply with the domestic judicial decisions by regularly paying the sums awarded.

In addition, the following general measures were adopted by the Russian authorities to comply with the European Court ’ s judgment.

( a) Resolving similar cases

At the outset, the government paid the arrears accumulated as a result of the non-execution, as in the present case, of domestic judgments ordering the payment of compensation and allowances for the Chernobyl victims in the applicant ’ s position (a total of 2, 846 million Russian roubles were paid between January and October 2002).

5 , 128 other domestic judgments concerning the indexation of the allowances for the victims of Chernobyl were executed by the authorities.

The government has also improved its budgetary process to ensure that the necessary budgetary means are allocated to social security bodies ( 2,152,071, 000 Russian roubles were allocated for 2003, 2,538,280, 500 Russian roubles for 2004, and 2,622,335, 000 for 2005) to allow them continuously to meet their financial obligations arising , inter alia , from similar judgments. ...

( b) New indexation system introduced through legislation

As regards the obligation of continuous indexation of the amounts awarded by domestic courts, the legislation in force at the relevant time provided for the cost of living as an index for the calculation of allowances. By a decision of 19 June 2002, the Constitutional Court declared the relevant legislative provisions unconstitutional, in so far as this system was found to lack clarity and predictability; in this decision, the Constitutional Court referred, inter alia , to the conclusions of the European Court in the Burdov judgment. Consequently, on 2 April 2004, the Russian Parliament amended the legislation governing the social insurance of Chernobyl victims. The new law, which has been in force since 29 April 2004, provides for a new system of indexation of allowances, which is based on the inflation rate used for the calculation of the federal budget for the next financial year.

( c) Publication and dissemination of the judgment

The European Court ’ s judgment in [the] Burdov case has been published in Rossijskaia Gazeta (on 4 July 2002), the main official periodical publishing all laws and regulations of the Russian Federation and widely disseminated to all authorities. The judgment has also been published in a number of Russian legal journals and I nternet databases, and is thus easily available to the authorities and the public.

( d) Conclusion

In view of the foregoing, the Russian g overnment considers that the measures adopted following the present judgment will prevent new similar violations of the Convention in respect of the category of persons in the applicant ’ s position and that the Russian Federation has thus fulfilled its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.

The government also believes that the measures adopted constitute, moreover, a noticeable step towards resolving the more general problem of non-enforcement of domestic court decisions in various areas, as highlighted in particular by other cases brought before the European Court against the Russian Federation. The government continues to take measures to remedy this problem, not least in the context of the execution, under the Committee ’ s supervision, of other judgments of the European Court. ”

11 . The Committee of Ministers was satisfied that on 1 6 July 2002, within the time-limit set, the G overnment had paid the a p plicant the sum of just satisfaction provided for in the judgment of 7 May 2002 . It further noted , in particular, the measures taken in respect of the category of persons in the applicant ’ s position . Having regard to all the measures adopted, t he Committee concluded that the Government had exercised its functions under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention in this case . The Committee noted at the same time that the more general problem of non-execution of domestic court decisions in the Russian Federation wa s being addressed by the authorities, under the Committee ’ s supervision, in the context of other pending cases .

B. Enforcement of new domestic judgments in the applicant ’ s favour

1. Shakhty City Court ’ s judgment of 17 April 2003

12 . On 17 April 2003 the Shakhty City Court ordered the Directorate of Labour and Social Development ( Управление труда и социального развития ) of Shakhty to pay the applicant 15,984.80 Russian r oubles (RUB) as compensation for delays in payment of benefits in accordance with Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure . On 9 July 2003 t he judgment was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court and became final .

13 . During 2003-05 t he applicant consecutively submitted the writ of execution to the defendant authority, to bailiffs, to the Federal Treasury and then again to the def endant autho rity. On 19 August 2005 the authorities transferred the amount of the court ’ s award to the applicant ’ s account .

2. Shakhty City Court ’ s judgment of 4 December 2003

14 . On 4 December 2003 the Shakhty City Court ordered the Directorate of Labour and Social Development to pay the applicant RUB 6 8 , 463 . 54 as default interest for delays in payments between 1999 and 2001 , in accordance with the Compulsory S oc ial Insurance Act 1998 ( n o.125- ФЗ ) . The judgment was not appealed against and bec ame final on 15 December 2003.

15 . According to the applicant, he submitted the writ for execution to the respondent d epartment on the same date. On an unspecified date the writ was submitted to the Shakhty Bailiffs ’ Department ; t he latter decided on 30 June 2004 that the judgment was impossible to enforce as the debtor ’ s possessions could not be seized.

16 . On 14 November 2005 the Shakhty City Court granted the defendant authority ’ s request for correction of an arithmetic error and reduced the award to RUB 68,308.42. On 9 March 2006 the same court granted the applicant ’ s request for correct ion of an arithmetic error and ordered the defendant authority to pay the applicant RUB 108,251.95. On 18 October 2006 the authorities paid the latter amount to the applicant.

3. Shakhty City Court ’ s judgment of 24 March 2006

17 . On 24 March 2006 the Shakhty City Court ordered the Department of Labour and Social Development ( Департамент труда и социального развития ) of Shakhty to index-link the monthly food allowance due to the applicant as of 1 January 2006 . The co urt set the am ount of monthly payments at RUB 1,183.73 with subsequent indexation and ordered a one-off payment o f RUB 36,877.06 for compensation for shortfalls in previous monthly payments. In addition, as of 1 January 2006 the Department was ordered to proceed with monthly payments of RUB 1,972.92 with subsequent indexation in respect of compensation for health damage. The court further ordered the defendant authority to pay the applicant RUB 4,980.24 and RUB 13,312.46 as compensation for shortfalls in monthly payments made between 2000 and 2005 for health damag e and food allowance respectively and an additional indexation payment of RUB 1,652.35 for health damage . On 22 May 2006 the judgment was upheld by the Rostov R egional Court and became final.

18 . On 20 July 2007 the Shakhty City Court corrected a n arithmetic error in its judgment and changed the initially awarded amount of RUB 4,980.24 to RUB 5,222.78.

19 . On 2 November 2006 the j udgment of 24 March 2006 was executed in its major part: a total of RUB 67,940.56 was credited to the applicant ’ s account. At the same time, t he Ministry of Finance did not upgrade the monthly payments as ordered by the court ’ s judgment and the applicant continued to receive such payments at a lower level . On 1 July 2007 the Ministry decided to upgrade the m . On 17 August 2007 the applicant received RUB 9,112.26 as compensation for shortfalls in monthly payments accumulated until that date.

4. Shakhty City Court ’ s j udgments of 22 May 2007 and 21 August 2007

20 . On 22 May 2007 the Shakhty City Court decided that the Department of Labour and Social Development w as to pay the applicant as of 1 June 2007 the amount of RUB 17,219.43 monthly , with subsequent indexation , in respect of compensation for health damage . In addition, the Department w as to pay the applicant RUB 188 , 566 as compensation for shortfalls in previous monthly payments. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 4 June 2007. It was enforced on 5 December 2 007.

21 . On 21 August 2007 , the Shakhty City Court ordered the Federal Labour and Employment Agency to pay the applicant RUB 225,821.73 as compensation for certain delayed payments in respect of health damage between 2000 and 2007. The judgment was not appeale d against and became final on 3 September 2007. It was enforced on 3 December 2007.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC MATERIAL S

A. Execution of domestic judgments

1. Law on Enforcement Proceedings

2 . Special execution procedure for the judgments delivered against the S tate and its entities

3 . Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation

B. Domestic remedies in respect of the non-execution or delayed execution of domestic judgments

1. Legal provisions

(a) Civil law

(b) Criminal law

2 . Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 25 January 2001

33 . The Constitutional Court held that Parliament should legislate on the grounds and procedure for compensation by the State for the damage caused by unlawful acts or failures to act of a court or a judge and determine territorial and subject matter jurisdiction over such claims.

3 . Supreme Court ’ s decision of 26 September 2008 and the new Compensation Bill

34 . On 26 September 2008 the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted a decision (no. 16) to submit to the State Duma of the Russian Federation a draft c onstitutional l aw on compensation by the State of damage caused by violations of the right to judicial proceedings within a reasonable time and of the right to the execution within a reasonable time of judicial decisions that have entered into legal force (hereinafter “ the Compensation Bill”) . The Supreme Court also decided to submit to the State Duma a second draft l aw introducing changes in certain legal acts in connection with the adoption of the Compensation Bill . Both drafts were formally tabled in the State Duma on 30 September 2008.

37 . The second draft l aw introduces amendments to other legal acts. Under new Article 1070 § 1 of the Civil Code, damage caused by violations of the reasonable - time requirement by State authorities in judicial proceedings or in the execution of judgments is compensated from the F ederal T reasury . Under new Article 242 § 2 of the Budget Code, judicial decisions granting such compensation must be enforced within two months.

4. The A ddress by the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly

I I I. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL S

A. Council of Europe

1. Committee of Ministers

39 . On 3-5 December 2007 the Committee of Ministers resumed consideration under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention of the group of the Court ’ s judgments against Russia concerning failure to enforce or delay s in the enforcement of domestic judgments ( Timofeyev and O thers , CM/Del/OJ/DH(2007)1013 ) . The following decision was adopted by the Committee on 19 December 200 7 ( CM/Del/Dec(2007)1013 FINAL ) :

“ The Deputies, ...

1. recalled that these judgments reveal various structural problems in the Russian legal system which, by their nature and scale, severely affect its effectiveness and cause very numerous violations of the Convention an increasing number of which are complained of before the Court;

2. took note, with interest, of various measures adopted or being taken by certain competent authorities to prevent new similar violations and to remedy those that have already occurred by setting up or improving appropriate domestic procedures, measures which remain to be taken;

3. emphasised anew that the problems revealed by the judgments require urgent solutions in order to ensure that the relevant Convention rights are adequately protected at the domestic level, thus preventing an exceedingly high number of similar applications to the Court;

4. invited the competent authorities to continue bilateral consultations with the Secretariat with a view to establishing a proper strategy for adoption of the necessary measures, including the setting up of e ffective domestic remedies;

... ”

“ – Improvement of budgetary procedures and of practical implementation of the budget decisions;

– Identifying a specific S tate authority as a defendant;

– Ensuring effective compensation for delays (indexation, default interest, specific damages, penalties for delays);

– Increasing the effectiveness of domestic remedies for proper enforcement of judicial decisions;

– Improvement of the legal framework governing compulsory execution against the public authorities;

– Ensuring effective liability of civil servants for non-enforcement;

Special consideration is given to possible ways of ensuring coherence of the present execution mechanisms by allowing the Treasury and the bailiffs to act in a complementary manner in their respective fields of competence and under appropriate judicial review. A strong emphasis is also put on possible ways of preventing litigation against the State through improved budgetary proceedings, which would allow the State to timely comply with its pecuniary obligations.”

41 . In Recommendation Rec(2004)6 to member S tates on the improvement of domestic remedies adopted on 12 May 2004 , the Committee of Ministers recommend ed , inter alia :

“ ... that member S tates ... review, following Court judgments which point to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice, the effectiveness of the existing domestic remedies and, where necessary, set up effective remedies, in order to avoid repetitive cases being brought before the Court ... ”

42 . The Appendix to the Recommendation further stated , inter alia :

“ Remedies following a ‘ pilot ’ judgment

13. When a judgment which points to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice ( ‘ pilot case ’ ) has been delivered and a large number of applications to the Court concerning the same problem ( ‘ repetitive cases ’ ) are pending or likely to be lodged, the respondent S tate should ensure that potential applicants have, where appropriate, an effective remedy allowing them to apply to a competent national authority, which may also apply to current applicants. Such a rapid and effective remedy would enable them to obtain redress at national level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity of the Convention system.

14. The introduction of such a domestic remedy could also significantly reduce the Court ’ s workload. While prompt execution of the pilot judgment remains essential for solving the structural problem and thus for preventing future applications on the same matter, there may exist a category of people who have already been affected by this problem prior to its resolution. ...

...

16. In particular, further to a pilot judgment in which a specific structural problem has been found, one alternative might be to adopt an ad hoc approach, whereby the S tate concerned would assess the appropriateness of introducing a specific remedy or widening an existing remedy by legislation or by judicial interpretation.

...

18. When specific remedies are set up following a pilot case, governments should speedily inform the Court so that it can take them into account in its treatment of subsequent repetitive cases.”

2. Parliamentary Assembly

43 . In Resolution 1516 (2006) on implementation of judgments of the European Court , adopted on 2 October 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly noted with grave concern the continuing existence in several S tates of major structural deficiencies which cause large numbers of repetitive findings of violations of the Convention and represent a serious danger to the rule of law in the S tates concerned. The Assembly listed among those deficiencies some major shortcomings in the judicial organisation and procedures in the Russian Federation, including chronic non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions delivered against the State (see paragraph 10.2 of the Resolution ) . The Assembly urged the authorities of the States concerned , including the Russian Federation , to resolve the issues of particular importance mentioned in the R esolution and to give this action top political priority .

44 . In t he r eport of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights , the r apporteur , Mr E rik Jurgens , called for an urgent solution to the above-mentioned problems as they affect a very large number of people in Russia . He also warned that t he influx of numerous clone cases in the Court wa s likely to undermine the effectiveness of the Convention mechanism ( Doc. 11020 ) . He further stated:

“ 58. The r apporteur welcomes the frank and open position of most of the Russian officials and institutions he met in Moscow as well as their clear understanding that the above problems put at stake the effectiveness of the Russian judicial system, and indeed, of the State as a whole. It is perhaps indicative that especially the presidents of the Constitutional Court and of the Supreme Court showed a very constructive attitude, as both of them recogni s ed the problems and encouraged the r apporteur in his endeavours to help find a solution for them.

59. The authorities provided assurances that the most important problems would be addressed as a matter of priority and that appropriate steps would be taken to ensure rapid adoption of reforms required by the European Court ’ s judgments.

61. Thorough reform strategies in this respect, however, still remain to be established. In view of the present problems raised in the judgments and others still to come, the r apporteur has strongly recommended to the authorities to set up a special mechanism of interagency cooperation in the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments. Constant involvement of Parliament and the Russian delegation to the Assembly in the implementation process is also necessary. The r apporteur is convinced that his Russian parliamentary colleagues will seriously consider his recommendation to set up a specific mechanism and procedure for parliamentary oversight to implement Strasbourg Court judgments, as well as other relevant proposals made in the draft resolution. The r apporteur also trusts that the members of the Russian delegation to the Assembly will promote and follow up the adoption of the specific measures required by certain judgments (for details, see Appendix III, Part III). ”

B. United Nations

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL N o . 1

46 . The applicant complained that the authorities ’ prolonged failure to comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in his favour violated his right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under 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 and public 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 . ... ”

A. The p arties ’ submissions

1. The Government

47 . The Government initially argued in their observations that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. However, in their further observations in response to those of the applicant, the Government did not maintain their objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies .

48 . The Government also submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations: the damage caused by enforcement delays had been compensated by additional indexation award s granted by courts under Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The Government supported their submission by reference to certain decisions of the Court ( notably Nemakina v. Russia (dec.), no. 14217/04, 10 July 2007 , and Derkach v. Russia (dec.), no. 3352/05, 3 May 2007) .

49 . The Government further argued that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded : in their view, the periods of time from receipt of the necessary documents by the competent authorities to the effective payment of judicial awards had ranged between thirteen days and nine months and were thus reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case-law . The Government blamed the applicant for having repeatedly withdrawn the writ of execution concerning the judgment of 17 April 2003 and consecutively sent it to different authorities. The judgment of 4 December 2003 was enforced only six months aft er its rectification on 9 March 2006. Finally, the judgment of 24 March 2006 was enforced in two steps: on 2 November 2006 in its major part and on 17 August 2007 for the remainder, namely only nine months after the partial execution.

50 . The Government lastly referred to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings in this case given that several judgments were involved . They also emphasised objective circumstances , such as the complexity of the federal multilevel budgetary system and legislative changes, which had led to delays in enforcement for which the Government were not responsible .

2. The applicant

51 . The applicant submitted that he had complained before different State authorities including the Ministry of Finance, the Federal Treasury, the p rosecutor ’ s office and b ailiffs about insufficient regular payments and/ or delays in enforcement of judgments in his favour. In his view, the State authorities should also have display ed diligence in this respect , but had faile d to take the necessary action. He considered that the surprisingly short delays in the execution of the judgments of 22 May 2007 and 21 August 2007 were presumably a result of the Court ’ s decision to communicate his application to the Government.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

1. Admissibility

53 . The Court notes that the Government have explicitly dropped their objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant and will not examine this question.

57 . The Government argued that domestic courts granted the applicant compensation for delays in enforcement of the judgments in his favour by way of indexation of the initial awards under Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant did not con test this fact , but argued that he retained the status of a victim . The Court has thus to consider whether the indexation awards amount to an acknowledgement of the violations of the Convention and constitute appropriate and sufficient redress in this respect .

58 . The Court notes on the first point that the decisions referred to by the Government did not explicitly acknowledge violations of the Convention. They awarded compensation on the basis of an objective fact that a certain time had elapsed between the moment when the sums were due and the moment when they were paid. The question would thus arise of whether these decisions acknowledged the alleged violations in substance. However, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on this issue, given its conclusion below as to whether the redress granted was adequate and sufficient.

59 . On the latter point, t he Court observes that Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure only allow s the courts to upgrade the amounts awarded in line with an official price index , thus compensat ing for depreciation of the national currency. The compensation so awarded thus covered only inflation -related losses but not any further damage sustained by the applicant, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary . The Government did not provide any argument to the contrary. The Court has already considered the issue in other cases concerning Russia and concluded that compensation for inflation losses alone , however accessible and effective in law and practice, does not constitute the adequate and sufficient redress required by the Convention ( see Moroko v. Russia , no. 20937/07, § 27 , 12 June 2008 ) . As to the earlier decisions quoted by the Government ( see parag raph 48 above ) , the Court reaffirms that they were taken in the specific circumstances of these individual cases ( ibid., § 26) and must not be interpreted as establishing any general principle that would contradict the Court ’ s present conclusion .

60 . The Court accordingly concludes that the applicant was not granted adequate and sufficient redress in respect of the alleged violations and can thus still claim to be a victim under Article 34 of the Convention. The Government ’ s objection must therefore be dismissed.

61 . As regards other arguments submitted by the parties, t he Court notes that they raise serious questions that require consideration on the merits. The Court accordingly considers that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

63 . The parties disagreed on this point , at least with regard to three of the five judgments : the Government considered that the delays were up to ten months and were in conformity with the Convention ; the applicant considered the delays to be much longer and , therefore, in breach of the Convention .

64 . Given these diverging positions, t he Court considers it appropriate to reiterate and clarify the main principles established by its case-law that must guide the determination of the relevant issues under the Convention .

(a) General principles

67 . While the Court has due regard to the domestic statutory time-limits set for enforcement proceedings, the ir non-respect does not automatically amount to a breach of the Convention. Some delay may be justified in particular circumstances but it may not, in any event, be such as to impair the essence of the ri ght protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov , cited above, § 35). Thus, the Court considered, for example, in a recent case concerning Russia , that an overall delay of nine months taken by the authorities to enforce a judgment was not prima facie unreasonable under the Convention (see Moroko , cited above, § 43 ). Such an assumption does not , however, obviate the need for an assessment in the light of the above- mentioned criteria (see paragraph 66 above) and having regard to other relevant circumstances ( ibid. , §§ 44-45).

70 . T he complexity of the domestic enforcement procedure or of the State budgetary system cannot relieve the State of its obligation under the Convention to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time. Nor is it open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources (such as housing) as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov , cited above, § 35 , and Kukalo v. Russia , no. 63995/00, § 49, 3 November 2005 ). I t is for the Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that the competent authorities can meet their obligation in this regard (see , mutatis mutandis , Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 24, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV , and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 45, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII ).

(b) Application of these principles to the present case

(i) Shakhty City Court ’ s j udgment of 17 April 2003

73 . The time taken by the authorities to comply with a judgment should accordingly be calculated from the moment on which it bec a me final and enforceable , that is, on 9 July 2003, until the moment when the judicial award was paid to the applicant, that is, on 19 August 2005 . The time taken to comply with the judgment of 17 April 2003 wa s thus two years and one month.

74 . Such a long delay in payment of a judicial award is on its face incompatible with the Convention requirements stated above and the Court finds no circumstance to justify it .

75 . It is noted, in particular , that the enforcement was not of any complexity: the judgment required payment of a sum of money. T he applicant made no obstacle to the enforcement . Nor can he be blamed for his attempt to seek relief with the bailiffs and the F ederal T reasury after having waited in vain for more than nine months for the defendant ’ s voluntary compliance with the judgment. On the other hand , the Court notes that the writ of execution fruitlessly stayed with various authorities for lengthy periods, notably nine months with the defendant Department, four months with the bailiffs and eleven months with the Federal Treasury. The Court finds no justification for this inaction . The complexity of the multilevel budgetary system referred to by the Government cannot justify the lack of appropriate coordination between the authorities and their inaction during the above periods .

76 . The above elements are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the State failed to enforce the judgment of 17 April 2003 within a reasonable time.

( i i) Shakhty City Court ’ s j udgment of 4 December 2003

77 . The judgment of 4 December 2003 became final on 15 Decem ber 2003 and was enforced on 18 October 2006. The time taken by the authorities to comply with the judgment was two years and ten months. It is true, as pointed out by the Government , that the court modified this judgment twice . The first rectification was made on 14 November 2005 upon the defendant authority ’ s request to reduce the initial award by RUB 155 (EUR 4). However , the need for such a rectification may explain only a tiny fraction of the overall delay , if any . Yet the Government offered no explanation for the almost two years which elapsed between 15 December 2003 and 14 November 2005 . N or did it inform the Court of any measure taken by the defendant authority to enforce the judgment during that period. Even assuming that the authority acted with more diligence at a later stage, such a long delay suffices for the Court to find a violation of the right to have th is judgment enforced within a reasonable time.

(iii) Shakhty City Court ’ s j udgment of 24 March 2006

78 . The Court finds it beyond any dispute that the judgment of 24 March 2006 , which became binding on 22 May 2 006, was executed on 2 November 2006 , but only in part. The parties also agreed that the full execution of the judgment had only been effected on 17 August 2007.

79 . While noting that the authorities acted with relative diligence by paying the awards in their major part within six months , t he Court considers that Article 6 imposes an obligation to comply with a binding and enforceable judgment in full . The Court will thus assess the reasonableness of the whole period until full compliance. The time taken by the authorities to comply with the judgment in its entirety was thus one year and almost three months.

80 . As it transpires notably from the Government ’ s submissions and the Shakhty Deputy Prosecutor ’ s letter of 29 April 2007 submitted by the applicant , the full enforcement of the judgment had not been possible given the absence of appropriate regulations or procedures at the federal level. Indeed, the upgrades decided by the Shakhty City Court had not been paid to the applicant until the adoption of a specific procedure in that connection by the Ministry of Finance (see paragraph 19 above ) .

81 . However, the Court has not found in the Government ’ s submissions any reason justifying more than one ye ar ’ s delay in the adoption by the Ministry of Finance of the new procedure. Nor can the Court attribute the delay to objective difficulties referred to by the Government: the matter appeared to be under the sole control of the Government . In any event, the lack of general regulation s or procedures at a federal level cannot per se justify such a long delay in compliance with a binding and enforceable judgment. In the Court ’ s view, the right to a court would not be effective if the execution of a binding and enforceable judgment in a particular case were made conditional on the adoption by the administration of general procedures or regulations in the area concerned.

82 . Finally, as regard s the nature of the award, the G overnment argued that the benefits in question were not the applicant ’ s only income and were thus of less importance. The Court cannot agree with this argument given that at least some of these awards concerned substantial amounts of compensation for health damage sustained by the applicant at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and leading to his lifelong disability. In the Court ’ s view, such awards can by no means be qualified as being marginal or insignificant in nature .

83 . In view of these circumstances, the Court concludes that the authorities ’ failure for one year and almost three months to fully comply with the judgment of 24 March 2006 also violated the applicant ’ s right to a court.

(iv) Shakhty City Court ’ s j udgments of 22 May 2007 and 21 August 2007

84 . The Court notes that the Shakhty City Court ’ s judgments of 22 May 2007 and 21 August 2007 became final on 4 June 2007 and 3 September 2007 respectively; they were enforced on 5 December 2007 and 3 December 2007 respectively. The time taken by the authorities to enforce the judgments was six months and three months respectively .

85 . The applicant referred to certain initial difficulties in obtain ing enforcement of the former judgment which were swiftly resolved following the communication of his application by the Court to the Government. Be that as it may, the Court is satisfied that the periods of six and three months respectively taken by the authorities to enforce these judgments do not in them sel ves appear unreasonable ; furthermore , the Court finds no particular circumstance showing that these delays impaired the essence of the applicant ’ s right to a court.

(v) Conclusion s

II . EXISTENCE OF EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC REMEDIES AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

“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.”

A. The p arties ’ submissions

90 . The applicant did not submit any specific argument on the existence of domestic remedies and their effectiveness. In his earlier observations, he mentioned that he had unsuccessfully submitted his grievances to various authorities , including the Ministry of Finance, the Federal Treasury, the p rosecutor ’ s o ffice and b ailiffs .

91 . The Government argued that there were several effective domestic remedies against non-enforcement that had not been te st ed by the applicant in the present case . First ly , t he Constitution guarantees to everyone judicial protection and the right to challenge State authorities ’ acts or inaction in courts. Law no. 4866-1 of 27 April 1993 and Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure allow such actions or inaction to be condemned by courts, thus opening a way for claim ing damages and bringing criminal proceedings under Article 315 of the Criminal Code against th o s e responsible for enforcement delays . An example of case-law was provided : by a decision of 13 July 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Republic of Chuvashiya, found inaction by the regional treasury department to be unlawful and ordered payment of the judicial award within one working day.

92 . Second ly , the Government submitted that Chapter 59 of the Civil Code provide d grounds for claiming both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for enforcement delays and that this remedy had proven its e f fectiveness in practice . F our examples of case-law awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage were provided or quoted (decision of 23 October 2006 in the case of Khakimovy by the Novo- Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan; decisions delivered on unspecified dates in the case of Akuginova and others by the Elista City Court, Repub lic of Kalmykiya; decision of 3 August 2004 in the case of Butko by the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan ; and decision of 28 March 2008 in the case of Shubin by the Beloretsk City Court, Republic of Bashkortostan ).

95 . The Government concluded that Russian law provide d for an aggregate of various remedies which should be considered as a whole; they were formulated with clarity and applied in practice as required by Article 13 of the Convention .

B. The Court ’ s assessment

1. General principles

97 . The scope of the Contracting States ’ obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant ’ s complaint; the “effectiveness” of a “remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant. At the same time, t he remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that ha s already occurred . Even if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so ( ibid. , §§ 157-58 , and Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 21071/05, § 45 , 10 April 2008 ).

– an action for compensation must be heard within a reasonable time (see Scordino , cited above, § 195 in fine );

– the compensation must be paid promptly and generally no later than six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation becomes enforceable ( ibid. , § 198);

– the procedural rules governing an action for compensation must conform to the principle of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention ( ibid. , § 200);

– the rules regarding legal costs must not place an excessive burden on litigants where their action is justified ( ibid. , § 201);

– the level of compensation must not be unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases ( ibid. , §§ 202-06 and 213).

100 . On this last criterion, the Court indicated that, with regard to pecuniary damage, the domestic courts are clearly in a better position to determine the existence and quantum. The situation is, however, different with regard to non-pecuniary damage. There exists a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings will occasion non-pecuniary damage (see Scordino , cited above, §§ 203-04 , and Wasserman , cited above, § 50 ). The Court considers this presump tion to be particularly strong i n the event of excessive delay in enforcement by the State of a ju dgment delivered against it , given the inevitable frustration arising from the State ’ s disregard for its obligation to honour its debt and the fact that the applicant has already gone through judicial proceedings and o btained success .

2 . Application of the principles to the present case

(a) Preventive remedies

101 . T he Court notes that it has already found in several cases that there was no preventive remedy in the Russian legal system which could have expedited the enforcement of a judgment against a State authority (see Lositskiy v. Russia , no. 24395/02, § § 29-31 , 14 December 2006 , and Isakov v. Russia , no. 20745/04, § § 21-22 , 19 June 2008 ). It found in particular that the bailiffs did not have power to compel the State to pay the judgment debt .

102 . The bailiffs ’ incapacity to influence in any way the enforcement of the judgments in the applicant ’ s favour , let alone to bring him relief , was also de monstrated in the present case. In April and June 2004 enforcement proceedings were instituted by bailiffs in respect of the judgments of 14 April and 4 December 2003. In July 2004 they were discontinued without bringing any result . The Rostov Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant by a letter of 12 July 2004 that the bailiffs did not have power to seize funds from the debtor authority ’ s main bank account ( лицевой счет ) , while its settlements account ( расчетный счет ) , on which bailiffs could seize funds , contain ed none .

104 . As to Article 315 of the Criminal Code mentioned by the Government and the wide array of sanctions it provides for , the Court does not exclude that such coercive action may contribute to chang e the attitude of those who unacceptably delay the execution of judgments. The Court has , however, seen no evidence of its effectiveness in practice. On the contrary, no use of this provision was made despite the applicant ’ s repeated complaints to the competent authorities , including prosecutors (see paragraph 80 above) . In these circumstances, the Court cannot consider this provision to be effective both in theory and in practice as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

(b) Compensatory remedies

(i) Pecuniary damage

105 . The Court has also considered on several occasions the question of the effectiveness of certain compensatory remedies relied on by the Government.

108 . On the other hand, the payment of such compensation awards was delayed in the present case , thus severely undermining the effectiveness of this remedy in practice . The Court accepts that the authorities need time in which to make payment. It notes , however, that the period should not generally exceed six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation becomes enforceable (see Scordino , cited above, § 198) . Having regard to all the material at its disposal, t he Court is not convinced that this requirement is systematically satisfied in respect of payment of compensation awarded by domestic courts under Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure . However, even assuming that the requirement of speedy payment of such compensation is met, this remedy alone would not provide sufficient redress as it can only compensate damage resulting from monetary depreciation (see paragraph 5 9 above).

(ii) Non-pecuniary damage

110 . T he Court found that , while the possibility of such compensation was not totally excluded, this remedy did not offer reasonable pro s pects of success, being notably conditional on the establishment of the authorities ’ fault (see Moroko , cited above , §§ 28-29 ). The Government did not con test in the present case that compensation under Chapter 5 9 was subject to this condition , unlike the indexation under Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 107 above) .

111 . T he Court refers in this respect to a very strong, albeit rebuttable , presumption that an excessive delay in execution of a binding and enforceable judgment will occasion non-pecuniary damage (see paragraph 100 above) . That compensation of non-pecuniary damage in non-enforcement cases is conditional on the respondent authority ’ s fault is difficult to reconcile with this presumption. Indeed, enforcement delays found by the Court are not necessarily due to failings of the respondent authority in a given case but may be attributable to deficient mechanisms at the federal and/or local level , not least to excessive complexities and formalism of the budgetary and financial procedures which considerably delay transfers of funds between responsible authorities and their subsequent payment to final beneficiaries.

112 . The Court notes that the Civil Code lists a very limited number of situations in which compensation for non-pecuniary damage is recoverable irrespective of the respondent ’ s fault ( notably Articles 1070 § 1 and 1100 ) . Neither excessively lengthy proceedings nor delays in enforcement of judicial decisions appear in this list. The Code provides , in addition , for damage caused by the administration of justice to be compensated if the fault of the judge is established by a final judicial conviction (Article 1070 § 2).

113 . Against this background, the Constitutional Court held in 2001 that the constitutional right to compensation by the State for the damage caused by procedural acts , including excessively lengthy proceedings , should not be tied in with the individual fault of a judge. Referring , inter alia , to Article 6 of the Convention, the Constitutional Court held that Parliament should legislate on the grounds and procedure for such compensation. The Court notes , however, that no legislation has yet been enacted to that effect.

114 . The Government argued nonetheless that Chapter 5 9 of the Civil Code had been successfully applied in practice , quoting four specific examples of domestic case-law. The Court notes that the same examples have been quoted by the Government in other similar cases and confirms its view that they appear as exceptional and isolated instances rather than evidence of e s tablished and consistent case-law . They cannot , therefore , alter the Court ’ s earlier conclusion that the remedy in issue is not effe c tive in both theory and practice.

115 . Moreover , the Court notes that even in such exceptional cases of application of Chapter 5 9 , the level of the compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damage was at times unreasonabl y low in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar non-enforcement cases. For instance, in the case of Butko quoted by the Government , the plaintiff received RUB 2,000 (EUR 55) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (decision of 3 August 2004) . The same amount was awarded under this head to V. Mukhlynova in the case of Akuginova and others also mentioned by the Government (decision of 22 January 2006) . The Court further notes that it has already found in two other cases that the amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage incurred through belated enforcement of judgments were manifestly unreasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case-law ( see Wasserman , cited above, § 56 , and Gayvoronskiy v. Russia , no. 13519/02, § 39 , 25 March 2008 ). The compensation was , in addition, awarded in excessively lengthy proceedings in the former case and was itself paid with considerable delay in the latter.

(c) Conclusion

III . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION

118 . Relying on Article 14 of the Convention , the applicant complained of discrimination on account on the authorities ’ alleged failure to apply the Compulsory Social Insurance Act 1998 ( No.125- ФЗ ) to the liquidators of the Chernobyl disaster on the same terms as to other professional groups. He submitted , in particular , that he had not received default intere st as provided for by this Act. The Government argued that this question concerned the application of domestic law and was solely within the competence of the domestic courts.

119 . The Court notes that the Shakhty City Court ’ s judgment of 4 December 2003 granted the applicant ’ s claim under th e above- mentioned Act (see paragraph 14 above) . In any event, the applicant ’ s complaint about alleged discrimination should first have been submitted to the domestic courts under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted domestic remedies in this regard . Nor did he substantiate his allegation before the Court. The Court therefore finds no appearance of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention and rejects this complaint .

IV . ALLEGED SHORTFALL IN PAYMENT OF JUST SATISFATION DUE UNDER THE COURT ’ S JUDGMENT OF 7 MAY 2002

120 . The applicant also complained of the authorities ’ failure to pay him the full amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Court ’ s judgment of 7 May 2002. According to his calculation, the sum of EUR 3,000 awarded was equivalen t at the date of payment to RUB 94,981 .50, while he only received RUB 92,724.60. He accordingly claimed a shortfall of RUB 2,256.90.

121 . The Court reiterates that under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the supervision of the execution of its judgments is entrusted to the Committee of Ministers (see paragraphs 10-11 above ) . T he Court has no competence to examine this complaint , which should have been submitted to the Committee of Ministers (see Haase and O thers v. Germany (dec.), no. 34499/04, 12 February 2008) .

V . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION

Article 46 Binding force and execution of judgments

“ 1 . The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

2 . The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution. ”

A. The parties ’ submissions

123 . The applicant submitted that the Russian authorities ’ recurrent failure to enforce domestic judicial decisions delivered against them constitute d a systemic problem as demonstrated by repeated non-enforcement of such decisions in his case.

124 . The Government argued that no such problem exist ed in respect of either enforcement of judgments or domestic remedies. They argued that the Constitutional Court had not con test ed the existence of a special procedure for the execution of judicial decisions against the State (judgment of 14 July 2005) . There were further specific regulations govern ing payment of benefits to Chernobyl victims. In 2007 considerable budgetary allocations were additionally made to pay outstanding debts under domestic judgments and the actual needs in such funds were reflected in the 2007 budget. The Government concluded that there were clear mechanisms for enforcement of such decisions , notably in respect of Chernobyl victims . The complexity of these mechanism s was attributable to the multilevel structure of the budget ary system and to the need for coordination between federal and local authorities. The Government submitted, in addition, som e statistical information about enforcement of judgments provided by federal ministries and bailiffs.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

1. General principles

126 . In order to facilitate effective implementation of its judgments along these lines, t he Court may adopt a pilot-judgment procedure allow ing it to clearly identify in a judgment the existence of structural problem s underlying the violation s and to indicate specific measure s or actions to be taken by the respondent S tate to remedy them ( see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 189-94 and the operative part, ECHR 2004-V, and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC] , no. 35014/97, §§ 231-39 and the operative part , ECHR 2006-VIII ) . This adjudicative approach is , however , pursued with due respect for the Convention organs ’ respective functions: it falls to the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the implementation of individual and general measures under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention (see , mutatis mutandis , Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 42 , ECHR 2005 ‑ IX , and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 42 , 28 April 2008 ) .

128 . If , however, the respondent State fails to adopt such measures fo l lowing a pilot judgment and continu e s to violate the Convention, t he Court will have no choice but to resume examination of all similar applications pending before it and to take them to judgment so as to ensure effective observance of the Convention ( see , mutatis mutandis , E.G. v. Poland , cited above, § 28) .

2. Application of the principles to the present case

(a) Application of the pilot- judgment procedure

130 . Notwithstanding these differences, the Court con siders it appropriate to apply the pilot -judgment procedure in this case, given notably the recurrent and persistent nature of the underlying problems, a large number of people affected by them in Russia and the urgent need to grant them speedy and appropriate redress at the domestic level .

(b) Existence of a practice incompatible with the Convention

132 . Although the Government denied such a situation in their additional observations, th eir submissions in the present case appear to run against an almost undisputed recognition at both the domestic and the international level of the existence of structural problem s in this field (see paragraphs 25 and 38 -45 above). The problems appear, in addition, to have been acknowledged by the Russian competent authorities (see notably CM/Inf/DH(2006)45 , cited above ) and are being repeatedly emphasised by the Committee of Ministers . The Committee ’ s recent decisions note d , in particular, that the structural problems in question in the Russian legal system severely affect ed , by their nature and scale, its effectiveness and cause d very numerous violations of the Convention (see paragraph 39 above) .

133 . The important concerns voiced and the findings made by various authorities and institutions are consonant with some two hundred judgments of the Court which highlighted the multiple aspects of the underlying structural problem s , which do not affect only Chernobyl victims, as in the present case, but also other large groups of the Russian population , including in particular some vulnerable groups. The State has thus been very frequently found to considerably delay the execution of judicial decisions ordering pay ment of social benefits such as pensions or child allowances, of compensation for damage sustained during military service or of compensation for wrongful prosecution . The Court cannot igno re the fact that approximately seven hundred cases concerning similar facts are currently pending before it against Russia and that some of the cases, like the present one, lead the Court to find a second set of violations of the Convention in respect of the same applicants (see Wasserman , cited above , and Kukalo v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 11319/04 , 24 July 2008 ) . Moreover, t he victims of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement dispose of no effective remedy, either preventive or compensatory, that allows for adequate and sufficient redress at the d omestic level ( see paragraphs 101-17 above) .

(c) General m easures

136 . The Court notes that the problems at the basis of the violations of Artic le 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol N o. 1 found in this case are large-scale and complex in nature. Indeed, they do not stem from a specific legal or regulatory provision or a particular lacuna in Russian law. A ccordingly , they require the implementation of comprehensive and complex measures , possibly of a legislative and administrative character , involving various authorities at both federal and local level. S ubject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court ’ s judgment ( see Scozzari and Giunta , cited above, § 249 ) .

137 . The Court notes that the adoption of such measures has been thoroughly considered by the Committee of Ministers in cooperation with the Russian compe tent authorities (see decisions and documents cited in paragraph s 39-40 above). The Committee ’ s decisions and documents show that although the implementation of the necessary measures is far from being completed, further actions are being considered or taken in this respect (see the main avenues outlined in paragraph 40 above) . The Court notes that t his process raises a number of complex legal and practical issues which go, in principle, beyond the Court ’ s judicial function. It will thus abstain in these circumstances from indicating any specific general measure to be taken . The Committee of Ministers is better placed and equipped to monitor the necessary reforms to be adopted by Russia in this respect . The Court therefore leave s it to the Committee of Ministers to ensure that the Russian Federation, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention, adopt s the necessary measures consistent with the Court ’ s conclusions in the present judgment .

138 . The Court observes , however, that the situation is different as regards the violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies . In accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, the Court ’ s findings in paragraphs 101-17 above clearly require the setting up of an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies allowing adequate and sufficient redress to be granted to large numbers of people affected by the violations in question . It appears highly unlikely in the light of the Court ’ s conclusions that such an effective remedy can be set up without changing the domestic legislation on certain specific points .

139 . In this respect, t he Court attaches considerable importance to the findings of the Russian Constitutional Court , which has invited Parliament since January 2001 to set up a procedure for compensation of damage arising , inter alia , from excessively lengthy proceedings . Of particular importance is the finding made by reference notably to Article 6 of the Convention that such compensation should not be conditional on the establishment of fault (see paragraph s 3 2-33 above) . The Court also welcomes the legislative initiative recently taken by the Supreme Court in this area and notes the bills tabled in Parliament on 30 September 2008 with a view to introducing remedies in respect on the violations in question (see paragraphs 3 4 -3 6 above) . The Court notes with interest the reference to the Convention standards as a basis for determining compensation for damage , and that the average amounts of compensation for delayed enforcement were calculated by reference to the Court ’ s case-law (see paragraph s 35 and 36 above).

(d ) Redress to be granted in similar cases

(i) Applications lodged after the delivery of the present judgment

(ii) Applications lodged before the delivery of the present judgment

V I . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

147 . 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.”

A. Damage

148 . The applicant claimed a global sum of 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He referred to sufferings caused by the State ’ s repeated and persistent failure to comply with the domestic judgments , notwithstanding his first successful application to the Court. He supported his claim for pecuniary damage by the authorities ’ alleged failure to pay him default interest under the Compulsory Social Ins ur ance Act 1998 (see paragraph 118 above).

149 . The Government submitted that the applicant had suffered no pecuniary damage and that a finding of a violation would provide adequate just satisfaction for any damage sustained. The y referred to certain non-enforcement cases in which the Court had either awarded modest amount s ( see Plotnikovy v. Russia , no. 43883/02, § 34, 24 February 2005 ) in respect of non-pecuniary damage or decided that the finding of a violation was sufficient ( see Poznakhirina v. Russia , no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Shapovalova v. Russia , no. 2047/03, 5 Octobe r 2006; Shestopalova and Others v. Russia , no. 39866/02 , 17 November 2005; and Bobrova v. Russia , no. 24654/03, 17 November 2005 ) .

150 . The Court notes that it has rejected the applicant ’ s complaint about non-payment of default interest under the Compulsory Social Insurance Act 1998 (see paragraph 119 above ) ; i t therefore also rejects the applicant ’ s claim for pecuniary damage in this regard .

152 . T he Court cannot agree with the Government that a finding of a violation would provide adequate just satisfaction. The Court refers in this respect to a very strong presumption that the authorities ’ non-compliance or delayed compliance with a binding and enforceable judgment will occasion non-pecuniary damage (see paragraph s 100 and 111 above). I t transpires clearly from the great majority of its judgments that such violations of the Convention give rise , in principle, to frustration and distress that cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation .

153 . Against this background, the cases referred to by the Government appear rather exceptional . Indeed , the Court ’ s position in these cases may be explained by their very specific circumstances, not least by the small size of domes tic court awards (less than EUR 100 in most of the cases) and the marginal significance of the awards in relation to the applicants ’ incomes (see Poznakhirina , cited above, § 35 ).

155 . Turning to the circumstances of the present case , t he Court notes that by the judgment of 7 May 2002 it awarded the same applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of enforcement delays ranging between almost one and three years within the Court ’ s jurisdiction and concerning three domestic judgments (see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, §§ 36 and 47 , ECHR 2002-III ).

B. Costs and expenses

158 . The applicant did not claim any compensation for costs and expenses . Th e Court therefore makes no award under this head.

C. Default interest

159 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares admissible the complaint concerning the authorities ’ prolonged failure to comply with binding and enforceable judgments in the applicant ’ s favour and the remainder of the applicant ’ s complaints inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 on account of the State ’ s prolonged failure to enforce three domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the authorities to the applicant ;

3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the enf orcement of the judgments of 22 May 2007 and 21 August 2007 ;

4 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judgments in the applicant ’ s favour ;

5 . Holds that the above violations originated in a practice incompatible with the Convention which consists in the State ’ s recurrent failure to honour judgment debts and in respect of which aggrieved parties have no effective domestic remedy;

6. Holds that the respondent S tate must set up , within six months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention , an effective domestic remedy or combination of such remedies which secure s adequate and sufficient redress for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments in line with the Convention principles as established in the Court ’ s case - law ;

7 . Holds that the respondent S tate must grant such redress , within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a judgment debt in their favour who lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications were communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court;

8 . Holds that pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court will adjourn , for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the proceedings in all cases concerning solely the non-enforcement and/ or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the State authorities , without prejudice to the Court ’ s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention ;

9 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant , within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, EUR 6,000 ( six thousand euros) , plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage , to be converted into Russian r oubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement ;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

10 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicant ’ s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 January 2009 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

André Wampach Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President