Communicated on 4 December 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 4762/11 Dmitriy Sergeyevich SERGEYEV against Russia lodged on 21 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Sergeyevich Sergeyev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Dzerzhinskiy .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

Between September 2002 and November 2003 the applicant was engaged in an anti-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus Federal District of the Russian Federation.

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a case against the authorities seeking to recover the remuneration for his military conduct during the aforementioned period.

On 23 July 2004 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison found for the applicant and awarded him 213,025.39 Russian roubles.

On 5 August 2004 the Military Court issued the writ of execution. Between 5 August 2004 and 8 July 2009, the day the judgment was fully enforced, the applicant applied to the authorities for execution of the judgment several times. The judgment remained unenforced.

On 5 October 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights complaining about the lengthy enforcement of the judgment in his favour and lack of an effective remedy.

On 19 May 2010, following the pilot judgment of the Court in the case of Burdov v. Russia , (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 , as well as adoption of the Compensation Act by the Russian parliament, the Court ’ s registry informed the applicant about the new remedy at the domestic level.

On 3 November 2010 the applicant applied to the Military Court of the North Caucasus Federal District seeking compensation for lengthy enforcement under the Compensation Act.

On 24 November 2010 the Military Court returned the application lodged by the applicant as time-barred considering that according to Article 3 of the Compensation Act the applicant should have applied for compensation within six months from the moment when the judgment of 23 July 2004 had been enforced, that is between 8 July 2009 and 8 January 2010. In addition the court noted that the Compensation Act could not be applied retrospectively. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal.

On 3 March 2011 the Single Judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the appeal for consideration on the merits.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 6 § 2 of the Compensation Act provides that all individuals who have complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their right to a trial within a reasonable time or to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time has been violated may claim compensation in domestic courts under the Compensation Act within six months of its entry into force, provided the European Court has not ruled on the admissibility of the complaint.

COMPLAINTS

Under Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention the applicant essentially complains about lengthy enforcement of the judgment in his favour and lack of effective domestic remedy. He further complains about lack of access to court with regard to his claims for compensation being left unexamined by the domestic courts. Relying on the same facts the applicant complains about infringement of his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS to the parties

1. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts ’ decisions to leave the applicant ’ s respective claims under the Compensation Act without examination on the merits ?

2. Have there been violations of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the lengthy enforcement of the judgment in the applicant ’ s favour?

3. Having regard to the proceedings instituted by the applicant under the Law no. 68-FZ of 30 April 2010, “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”), did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy for the lengthy enforcement of the final judgment, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?