CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juillet 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 66 July 2004 Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.) - 75907/01 Decision 8.7.2004 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of time taken to enforce a writ of execution: inadmissible The applicant was the holder of a State commodity bond under which the Government undertook to give her a specific Russian-made passenger car. Another car was offered to her, which she refused because it was cheaper than the one to which she was entitled. The applicant instituted proceedings against the Government in February 2001. The courts allowed her claim and awarded her a sum of money for the value of the car. The applicant appealed, complaining about the insufficiency of the amount she had been awarded, but the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2001. Shortly afterwards, the applicant submitted to the authorities a writ of execution which was returned because the debtor’s name was incorrectly indicated. She submitted a new writ and payment was credited to her bank account in May 2002. Inadmissible under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (concerning both the length of the enforcement proceedings and the alleged failure to provide a car): Given the amendments introduced in the relevant legislation, the State was no longer obliged to provide a car and the debt could be settled by paying a sum in money. As regards the length of the execution proceedings, whilst there had been formal defects which could have been identified by the authorities in a more diligent manner, the overall duration of the enforcement stage (one year, one month and 20 days) had not been excessive: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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