Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 26759/03

The Court had already found, in a similar context, that after a competent State agency was served with a judgment, the recourse by the applicant to another State agency should not in principle have been necessary to secure its enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis, Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).

As regards the Government's argument that the delay of enforcement was to a certain extent justified by the applicant's failure to submit the writ of execution to the respondent authority until March 2003, the Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005; and Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 26759/03

The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 26759/03

The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 26759/03

The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and Poznakhirina v. Russia no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).