FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 28371/11 Musaddig JAHANGIROV 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 Blaš ko, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 April 2011,

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 Musaddig Jahangirov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Baku. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev and Mr S. Bagirov, lawyers 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. The applicant participated in an auction for privatization of shares of a formerly State-owned joint-stock company, organised by the State Committee on Property Affairs (“the SCPA”), and submitted his privatization vouchers as proposed payment. He bought 212,895 shares with his vouchers.

5. On 16 October 2002 the Khatai District Court annulled the results of the auction. However, the privatization vouchers were not returned to the applicant. He lodged a complaint against the SCPA with the Khatai District Court requesting the court to order the Committee to return the privatization vouchers or their nominal value.

6. On 14 December 2009 the Khatai District Court partially granted the applicant ’ s claim ordering the Committee to pay the applicant the nominal value of the vouchers.

7. On 14 April 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment of 14 December 2009.

8. On 14 October 2010 the Supreme Court delivered the final decision upholding the lower courts ’ judgments.

9. On 5 August 2011 the SCPA transferred the nominal value of the v ou chers to the applicant ’ s bank account. On 10 August 2011 the applicant sent a letter to the enforcement officer confirming that the amount was transferred to his account. On 22 September 2011 the Khatai District Court terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment had been enforced.

COMPLAINTS

10. The applicant complained under Article 6 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

11. The Government submitted that the judgment delivered in the applicant ’ s favour had been fully enforced on 5 August 2011 and the amount ordered by the judgment was transferred to the applicant ’ s bank account.

12. 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.

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

14. The Court observes, and it is not disputed by the parties, that the Supreme Court ’ s final decision of 14 October 2010 was executed in full on 5 August 2011, with a delay of ten months.

15. 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).

16. 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