FIRST SECTION

CASE OF GLEBOV and GLEBOVA v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 21777/04 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

29 November 2007

FINAL

29/02/2008

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Glebov and Glebova v. Russia ,

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

Mr L. Loucaides , President, Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr S.E. Jebens , Mr G. Malinverni , judges, and Mr A. Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 8 November 2007 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 21777/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr Aleksey Grigoryevich Glebov and Mrs Svetlana Mitro f anov n a Gle b ova (“the applicants”), on 27 April 2004 .

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3 . On 27 June 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admis sibility.

THE FACTS

4 . The applicants were born in 1936 and 1939 respectively and live in Voronezh .

5 . The applicants sued the local Social Security Committee for an adjustment of the ir pensions in line with inflation . By judgments of 25 January 2001 , the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded them 1,066 .98 and 1,083.88 Russian roubles , respectively.

6 . T he monies were paid to the applicants on 19 October 2006.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No . 1

7 . Re ferring to Articles 2, 14 and 17 of the Convention, the applicants complain ed that the judgment s of 25 January 2001 had not bee n enforced in good time . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, § 26 , ECHR 2002 ‑ III ). The relevant parts of those 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 ... ”

A. Admissibility

8 . The Court notes that th e application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

9 . The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicants ' rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

10 . The applic ants submitted that the judgments of 25 January 2001 had been enforced in October 2006.

11 . The Court observes that the judgments of 25 January 2001 had been enforced in full on 19 October 2006. Thus, the y remained without enforcement for more than five years.

12 . The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases ra ising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Burdov , cited above , § 35 ; Wasserman v. Russia , no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; and Gerasimova v. Russia , no. 24669/02, § 17 et seq. , 13 October 2005 ).

13 . Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing , for years, to comply with the enforc eable judgment s in the applicant s ' favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of their right to a court and prevented them from receiving the money they could reasonably have expected to receive.

14 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

II . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15 . 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.”

16 . The applicant s did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the application admissible;

2 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 November 2007 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

André Wampach L oukis Loucaides Deputy Registrar President