CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 octobre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9859A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s760F7EF8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sB8BE277E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC001F88 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 63021/00 by Nikolay Afanasyevich ABOYMOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 October 2004   as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2000, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nikolay Afanasyevich Aboymov, is a Russian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Blagoveshchensk in the Republic of Bashkortostan. The respondent Government were represented by Mr   P.   A.   Laptev, the representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant receives an old age pension. As his pension due for the period from July 1998 to December 1998 had not been paid to him he applied to a court. On 18 December 1998 the Blagoveshchensk District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan found for the applicant, ordering the Blagoveshchensk Town Pension Fund to pay him 2,660.28 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears as delayed pension payments and 767.64 RUR as inflation losses. On 21 January 1999 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, on the defendant's appeal, quashed the judgment in a part related to the court award for inflation losses, having confirmed the remaining part concerning the pension in arrears. The applicant brought a second action against the Blagoveshchensk Town Pension Fund for non-pecuniary damages allegedly sustained as a result of the delay in pension payments. On 19 February 1999 the Blagoveshchensk District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan rejected the applicant's claim. The court found that the delay in payment of pension occurred on account of the failure of organizations and individuals to pay pension contributions in time for which the pension authority cannot be held responsible. The court further maintained that the claim had no basis in domestic law. On 25 March 1999 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dismissed the applicant's appeal against the judgment. The applicant's subsequent requests to the Supreme Court of Russia pursuing the reopening of the case concerning non-pecuniary damages by way of supervisory review proceedings were unsuccessful, of which he was informed by letters of 9 December 1999, 31   January and 22 September 2000. On 11 September 2002, following an application of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Bashkortostan by way of supervisory review, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan quashed the decision of the appeal court of 21 January 1999 in a part concerning the inflation losses and upheld the original judgment of 18 December 1998 in this respect.   COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained, with a general reference to the Convention, about the non-execution of the judgment of the Blagoveshchensk District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan of 18   December 1998. 2.     The applicant also complained, referring to the Convention, that the courts erred in deciding the case concerning non-pecuniary damages for the delayed pension. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained about the non-execution of the court judgment of 18   December 1998. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Article 6, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows: “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. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” The Government submitted that the judgment had been executed. The court award of 2,660.28 Russian roubles was paid to the applicant by instalments on 23 December 1998 and on 26 and 29 January 1999. The applicant has not denied the Government's submission. He also informed the Court that in November 2002 the court award of 767.64 Russian roubles was paid to him. The Court notes that the judgment of 18 December 1998, as confirmed on appeal on 21 January 1999, was executed in full on 29 January 1999. The Court further notes that the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan of 11   September 2002, whereby the decision of the appeal court of 21 January 1999 was amended and the judgment of 18 December 1998 confirmed in its original version, was also fully executed in November 2002. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 2.     The applicant also complained that the courts erred in deciding the case concerning non-pecuniary damages for the delayed pension. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant part of which is cited above. The Court notes that the proceedings in question ended with the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan of 25 March 1999. The Court recalls that supervisory review proceedings, which took place thereafter, are not considered an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no.   47033/99, 22 June 1999) and are not, therefore, taken into account. The present complaint was lodged on 12   October 2000, which is more than six months after the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan of 25   March 1999. It follows that this complaint is introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President