This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TIKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Tikhov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Christos Rozakis, President, Nina Vajić, Anatoly Kovler, Khanlar Hajiyev, Dean Spielmann, Giorgio Malinverni, George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 March 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 14296/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty-six Russian nationals listed in appendix no. 1 on 18...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF TIKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 14296/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 March 2008 FINAL 27/06/2008 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
TIKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Tikhov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Christos Rozakis, President, Nina Vajić, Anatoly Kovler, Khanlar Hajiyev, Dean Spielmann, Giorgio Malinverni, George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 March 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 14296/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty-six Russian nationals listed in appendix no. 1 on 18 April 2003. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr R.A. Zarbeyev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. On 25 November 2003 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4. The applicants live in various towns of Leningrad and Pskov Regions of Russia.
2 TIKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT A. Court awards and enforcement proceedings 5. The applicants, all former or active military servicepersons, were entitled to certain service-related benefits, to be paid by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. In 2002 they sued the military authorities claiming the arrears related to those benefits. 6. On the dates set out in appendixes nos. 2, 3 and 4 the domestic courts granted the applicants' claims and ordered the military authorities to pay them the respective amounts. Some of the awards were denominated in Russian roubles (RUB), whereas others were denominated in United States dollars (USD). 7. On various dates the courts issued writs of execution. The applicants forwarded them with accompanying documents to the treasury office. However, the writs were returned to the applicants unexecuted. The treasury office explained to some of the applicants that the Ministry of Defence (the debtor) had no funds available. The applicants then addressed the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. However, the judgments remained unexecuted. 8. In March-April 2003 some of the applicants wrote letters to the Ministry of Financ...