FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 23500/04 by Yuriy YAKIMENKO against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens , Mr G. Malinverni, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 June 2004,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

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 Yuriy Vladimirovich Yakimenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Novozybkov in the Bryansk Region . The Russian Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant lived in the town of Zlynsk in the Bryansk Region which had been affected by the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. In 2000 he decided to move to the village of Vily and sought a resettlement allowance. On 10 January 2001 the Zlynkovskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region ordered the town council to pay the applicant 125,670 Russian roubles (RUR). On 1 March 2001 the Bryansk Regional Court upheld the judgment. On an unspecified date the applicant submitted his writ of execution to the Zlynsk Bailiff Office.

As the judgment of 10 January 2001 remained without enforcement, the applicant brought a civil action for compensation for the depreciation of the award. On 10 February 2005 the Zlynkovskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUR 97,690 as compensation for the continued non-enforcement of the judgment in the period up to 31 January 2005 . The se monies were paid to the applicant on 16 December 2005.

In the meantime, on 8 November 2005 the principal debt under the judgment of 10 January 2001 was paid to the applicant.

On 7 March 2006 the Zlynkovskiy District Court awarded a further compensation of RUR 19,252. It appears that the applicant received it in August 2006.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 January 2001.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 January 2001. 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 ... ”

The Government submitted that the judgment in question had been enforced in full. They acknowledged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and submitted that the applicant had been awarded compensation for the belated enforcement of the judgment.

The applicant maintained his complaint.

The Court finds that it is not necessary to examine the arguments presented by the parties as the complaint about non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 January 2001 is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

The Court recalls that for an applicant to be able to claim to be the “victim” of a violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, not only must he have the status of victim at the time the application is introduced, but such status must continue to obtain at all stages of the proceedings. It reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Amuur v. France , judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III, § 36).

Turning to the facts of the present case , the Court observes that the judgment of 10 January 2001 was fully enforced on 8 November 2005. In their observations of 13 February 2006 the respondent Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 caused by the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 January 2001. On 10 February 2005 the domestic court awarded the applicant a compensation of RUR 97,690 for the depreciation of the judgment debt in respect of the period up to 31 January 2005 . The sum was paid to the applicant on 16 December 2005 . A further compensation of RUR 19,252 for the subsequent period was awarded on 7 March 2006. It appears that t he applicant received the monies in August 2006.

The Court also notes that, as it transpires from the case file, the applicant ’ s claims before the domestic courts were limited to pecuniary loss sustained due to the depreciation of the judicial award in respect of the period it remained without enforcement.

Having regard to the fact that the judgment of 10 January 2001 had been enforced, to the acknowledgement by the respondent Government of the violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and to the fact that compensation awards had been made and were enforced within acceptable periods of time, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for , the alleged breach of the Convention.

It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “ victim ” of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Art icle 34 of the Convention and that the application is to be declared inadmissible , pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Dec ides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and declares the application in admissible.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President