FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 186/11 Afgan IMANOV 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 8 December 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 Afgan Imanov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Lerik . He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Nagiyev , 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 November 2008 the applicant was dismissed by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism from his position of director of Lerik District Children ’ s Art School.

5. On 8 May 2009 the Sabail District Court found the applicant ’ s dismissal unlawful and ordered his reinstatement in his previous job and the payment of his unpaid salaries for the period between 19 November 2008 and the date of the judgment.

6. On 1 October 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment of 8 May 2009.

7. On 15 February 2010 the Supreme Court delivered the final decision upholding the lower courts ’ judgments.

8. On 14 June 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with illegal acquisition of funds at Children ’ s Art School. On 20 December 2010 the applicant was charged with the criminal offences of embezzlement and forgery by an official under Articles 179 and 313 of the Criminal Code.

9. Meanwhile, on 23 December 2010 the Ministry of Culture and Tourism ordered the applicant ’ s reinstatement and the payment of his unpaid salaries. On 24 December 2010 the applicant sent a letter to the enforcement officer asking for the termination of the enforcement proceedings due to his reinstatement in his previous job.

10. On 27 December 2010 the Lerik District Court delivered a decision dismissing the applicant from his position as an interim measure upon the request of the investigator in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him on 14 June 2010.

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 judgment delivered in the applicant ’ s favour had been fully enforced on 24 December 2010.

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 15 February 2010 was executed in full on 24 December 2010.

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