THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 39109\/07
\nMagomed Ibragimovich MAKAZHI
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4\u00a0September 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Branko Lubarda, President,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7\u00a0July 2007,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
The applicant, Mr Magomed Ibragimovich Makazhi, is a Russian national, who was born in 1936 and lives in Makhachkala.<\/p>\n
The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
On 24\u00a0November 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Makhachkala ordered to recalculate the applicant\u2019s old-age pension applying the coefficient of 0.75, to index-link the pension and apply the bank interest, for the period as of 1\u00a0January 2002. The judgment became final ten days later.<\/p>\n
On 20\u00a0July 2004 the same court excluded a reference to the application of the bank interest to the applicant\u2019s pension from the operative part of the judgment of 24\u00a0November 2003.<\/p>\n
The Government submitted that on 2\u00a0August 2004 the enforcement proceedings were completed on account of the full enforcement of the judicial award. They submitted a copy of the bailiffs\u2019 service\u2019s decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 24\u00a0November 2003.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, at some point criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for deliberate provision of false information to the pension authorities. On 20\u00a0July 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court of Makhachkala found that the applicant had deliberately provided false information to the pension authorities concerning his employment in 1949\u20111954 and as a result had received 5,596 Russian roubles of supplement to his pension for the period between April 2001 and February 2005. The court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant as he had acknowledged his guilt and had reimbursed the amount overpaid to him to the authorities.<\/p>\n
At some point, apparently in 2006 or 2007, the pension authorities applied to the same court with a request to reopen the proceedings re\u2011examine the case which ended up with the judgment of 23\u00a0November 2003, due to the newly-discovered circumstances. The pension authority claimed that the applicant had produced false information to justify his pension claims.<\/p>\n
On 28\u00a0June 2007 the first-instance court refused the request as lodged out of time. It found that the pension authority had become aware of the relevant circumstances as early as in August-September 2004 and, moreover, the relevant documents had been included in the applicant\u2019s pension file in 2005. It appears that the decision was not appealed against and became final.<\/p>\n
In 2010 the applicant claimed compensation for delayed enforcement under the Compensation Act. On 9\u00a0June 2010 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan refused to accept the application for examination as lodged with a wrong court, out of time and not supported with necessary documents. In particular, the judge observed that the judgment of 24\u00a0November 2003 had been enforced in August 2004. It appears that the applicant did not appeal.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n
On 7\u00a0July 2007 the applicant complained under Articles\u00a06 and 13 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 24\u00a0November 2003 in his favour and about unlawfulness of the decision of 20\u00a0July 2004.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
The applicant complained under Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 that the judgment of 24\u00a0November 2003 has remained unenforced, as the bank interest was not applied to his pension for the reference period. The Government claimed, with reference to the decision to discontinue the proceedings, that the judgment had been enforced in full in August 2004, and pointed out that the applicant had provided false information to the pension authorities.<\/p>\n
In the Court\u2019s view, there is nothing in the case file to suggest that the outcome of the criminal proceedings concerning the provision of false information had any bearing on the contents or the binding force of judgment of 24\u00a0November 2003, or on its subsequent enforcement. Indeed, that judgment has never been set aside or amended on account of the courts\u2019 findings in the above criminal proceedings \u2013 on the contrary, the pension authority\u2019s request to that effect was dismissed on 28\u00a0June 2007 as belated. In these circumstances, the Court rejects the Government\u2019s submissions in this part as having no relevance to the applicant\u2019s non-enforcement complaint under examination.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the Court reiterates its constant approach that that in determining whether or not the judgment was enforced, the Court should, in principle, rely on the findings made by the domestic courts, since its role in this matter is essentially subsidiary to that of the domestic authorities, who are better placed and equipped to assess the particular manner in which the enforcement should be carried out and the debtor\u2019s compliance with the enforcement modalities (see Gerasimov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a029920\/05 and 10 others, \u00a7\u00a0173, 1\u00a0July 2014; Belkin and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no.\u00a014330\/07, 5\u00a0February 2009; and Elinna Shevchenko v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no\u00a01250\/05, 14\u00a0October 2010).<\/p>\n
The Court observes that the applicant has not brought any proceedings before the domestic courts concerning the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 24\u00a0November 2003, as amended by the decision of 20\u00a0July 2004. In particular, it is not disputed that he has not challenged the decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n
In these circumstances, the Court lends credence to the Government\u2019s submissions and accepts that the judgment of 24\u00a0November 2003, as amended on 20\u00a0July 2004, was fully enforced on 2\u00a0August 2004.<\/p>\n
The Court notes at the outset that the judgment was executed within less than nine months, which was reasonable in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law (see Belkin and Others, cited above). In any event, the Court reiterates that in cases of non-enforcement six months run from the date of execution of the judgment (see Gorokhov and Rusyayev v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a038305\/02, \u00a7 27, 17\u00a0March 2005). However, the applicant only lodged his non-enforcement complaint in 2007, that is more than six months from the enforcement date.<\/p>\n
It follows that this part of an application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
The Court further notes that the applicant complains, in essence, about the outcome of the proceedings of 20\u00a0July 2004 by which the initial wording of the judgment of 23\u00a0November 2004 in his favour was modified to exclude a reference to the bank interest. It appears that he did not challenge the decision of 20\u00a0July 2004 on appeal, and it became final ten days later, that is more than six months before the introduction of his application with the Court.<\/p>\n
It follows that this part of an application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
Finally, in so far as Article\u00a013 is concerned, the Court has found above that the non-enforcement complaint did not give rise to an arguable claim of a breach of a Convention right. Accordingly, Article\u00a013 of the Convention does not apply.<\/p>\n
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible rationemateriae and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 September 2018.<\/p>\n
Stephen Phillips\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 BrankoLubarda
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n