CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 mai 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 86 June 2006 Yeremenko v. Russia (dec.) - 24535/04 Decision 23.5.2006 [Section I] Article 34 Victim Convention breach admitted and redress afforded following delay in enforcement: inadmissible   The applicant moved from Chechnya to the Rostov Region due to military hostilities in Chechnya. She left her flat and other property. In December 1999 a regional administration approved payment of compensation to her for lost housing due to the hostilities. The compensation was paid in March 2001. The applicant sued the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for damages, arguing that the value of the compensation had significantly decreased because of the delay in payment. In August 2002 the applicant was awarded compensation equivalent to 715 euros. That judgment was upheld on appeal in September 2002 and the applicant sent a writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance in October 2003. In August 2005 the judgement debt was paid. She then sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation due to the delay in enforcing the 2002 judgment. By judgment of September 2005 the domestic court granted her claim, acknowledging the further delay and ordering the Ministry of Finance to pay her the equivalent of some EUR 290 for depreciation of the value of the judgment debt of 2002. The sum was paid to the applicant within three months. Inadmissible : Where domestic proceedings include an admission of a Convention breach by the national authorities and the payment of a sum of money amounting to redress, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention. The judgment in question had been fully enforced in August 2005 and the applicant had not appealed against the judgment of September 2005 awarding her compensation for the further delay in enforcement. Having regard to the content of the judgment of September 2005, the applicant’s unwillingness to appeal against it and the fact that it was enforced within a relatively short period of time, the national authorities had acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention. Consequently, the applicant could no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes