Aleksandr Vasilyevich MURZIN and Others v Russia - 4595/02 [2010] ECHR 1584 (14 October 2010)

Aleksandr Vasilyevich MURZIN and Others v Russia - 4595/02 [2010] ECHR 1584 (14 October 2010)

The Government acknowledged the delayed enforcement of judgments and offered compensation comparable to Court awards in similar cases. The Court found it no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications regarding delayed enforcement and struck them out of the list. The remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 1584
Parties
Applicants: Aleksandr Vasilyevich Murzin and Others; Respondent: Russian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
14 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility and Striking Out
Outcome
Applications joined; struck out in respect of non-enforcement complaints; remainder declared inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Delayed Enforcement of Judgments, Right to a Fair Trial, Compensation for Non Enforcement, Pilot Judgment Procedure
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Delayed Enforcement of Judgments Right to a Fair Trial Compensation for Non Enforcement Pilot Judgment Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 47
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aleksandr Vasilyevich Murzin and Others

Applicants

Russian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility and Striking Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delayed enforcement of domestic judgments in favour of the applicants violated the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the compensation offered by the Government constitutes adequate redress
  3. 3 Whether the applications should be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Government acknowledged the delayed enforcement of judgments and offered compensation comparable to Court awards in similar cases. The Court found it no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications regarding delayed enforcement and struck them out of the list. The remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

Court Disposition

Applications joined; struck out in respect of non-enforcement complaints; remainder declared inadmissible.

Orders

  • Applications joined.
  • Applications struck out of the list in so far as the non-enforcement complaints are concerned.