Information Note on the Court’s case-law 57

October 2003

Timofeyev v. Russia - 58263/00

Judgment 23.10.2003 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Delay in the execution of a final judgment: violation

Facts : In 1981 criminal charges were brought against the applicant for dissemination of anti-Soviet propaganda. Some of his possessions, which he had allegedly used in his unlawful poli tical activity, were confiscated. The Regional Court found that he was not guilty on grounds of insanity and ordered his placement in a mental asylum. In 1992, after the applicant had been released, the public prosecutor issued a statement acknowledging th at the applicant had been unlawfully persecuted. The applicant brought a claim for the repossession of the property which had been confiscated, and in July 1998 the District Court ordered the Federal Treasury to pay him compensation. Since no progress had been made in the enforcement proceedings he issued proceedings for professional negligence against the bailiff. A District Court found the bailiff had lawfully stayed the enforcement proceedings pending supervisory review proceedings. New delays in the exe cution of the judgment arose because the public body responsible for paying compensation had not been unequivocally identified. Following an application by the public prosecutor for supervisory review of the original judgment, a new judgment was delivered in June 2001. Compensation was again awarded to the applicant. In December 2001, three years after the applicant’s original claim was made, the enforcement proceedings were closed and the award credited to the applicant’s account. The applicant claims he h as not received the money.

Law : Article 34 – The applicant had the status of “victim”: a decision of domestic courts favourable to an applicant is not sufficient to deprive him of such a status unless the national authorities have acknowledged and afforded redress for the breach of the Convention. Even if payment was made to the applicant, it was not an acknowledgement of, or redress for a breach of the applicant’s right to have the judgment executed in time.

Article 6 – The right of access to a court guar anteed by Article 6 § 1 would be illusory if binding judicial decisions by domestic courts remained inoperative. The execution of a judgment must be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6. The delays in the execution were caused by the bailiff’s unlawful actions, adjournments due to interference of supervisory review authorities and the obscurity of the original judgment. The applicant should not pay the price of these omissions of the State. It was unacceptable that a jud gment debt against the State was not honoured for such a long period of time.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 1 of Protocol 1 – A “claim” can constitute a “possession” if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable. The applicant did not receive the compensation as soon as it became enforceable, because of the failure of the national authorities to co mply with the judgment.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 –The applicant did not submit any claims for just satisfaction within the time-limit.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind th e Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes