FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 51435/10 Rafig HUSEYNOV against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1 December 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Faris Vehabović, President, Khanlar Hajiyev, Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Milan Bla š ko, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2010 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the Azerbaijani Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Rafig Huseynov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Goranboy. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Mustafayev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

2. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.

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

4. On 19 October 1994 the Nasimi District Court delivered a judgment ordering the applicant ’ s wife ’ s reinstatement in her previous job at the Naftalan District Executive Authority (“the NDEA”) and the payment of her unpaid salaries. On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant ’ s wife learned that she had been reinstated in her job and then had been again dismissed.

5. She lodged a complaint, claiming that she had never been reinstated in her job. She asked for her reinstatement in her job, the payment of her salaries from 1994 to the material time, as well as the compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the delay in the non-enforcement of the judgement of 19 October 1994.

6. On 8 October 2008 the Nasimi District Court partly granted her claims and ordered the NDEA to pay 3,832 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) as compensation for unpaid salaries.

7. In the meantime on 7 July 2009 the applicant ’ s wife died. Following her death, the applicant was recognised as her legal heir before the domestic authorities.

8. On 18 October 2009, while the appeal proceedings were still pending, the judgment of 8 October 2008 was executed and the applicant was paid the sum of AZN 3,832.

9. After a series of appeals, on 21 December 2009 the Supreme Court delivered a final decision. The court discontinued the part of the case concerning the late applicant ’ s wife ’ s reinstatement and ordered the NDEA to pay the applicant an amount of AZN 6,466 in respect of pecuniary damage (the late applicant ’ s wife ’ s unpaid salaries until her death) and AZN 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

10. On 27 August and 3 October 2010 the amounts ordered by the Supreme Court were transferred to the applicant ’ s bank account and the enforcement of the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 21 December 2009 was completed.

COMPLAINTS

11. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as a result of non-enforcement of that judgment.

THE LAW

12. The Government submitted that the final decision delivered in the applicant ’ s favour had been fully enforced on 3 October 2010 and the amount ordered by the decision was transferred to the applicant ’ s bank account.

13. The Government argued that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. Accordingly, they invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible.

14. The applicant maintained his complaint concerning the delay in the enforcement of the judgment.

15. The Court observes, and it is not disputed by the parties, that the Supreme Court ’ s final decision of 21 December 2009 was executed in full on 3 October 2010, with a delay of ten months.

16. It further recalls that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00 § 35, ECHR 2002-III, and Timofeyev v. Russia , no. 58263/00 , § 37, 23 October 2003). In the present case the overall period during which the court judgment remained unenforced was less than a year, which does not appear excessive (see Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004 and Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005).

17. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the judgment was enforced within a reasonable time. It follows that the application 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 December 2015 .

Milan BlaÅ¡ko Faris Vehabović              Deputy Registrar President