2. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

33. The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment furnishes the judgment beneficiary with a "legitimate expectation" that the debt would be paid and constitutes the beneficiary's "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, {Brumarescu}, cited above, § 74; Androsov v. Russia, No. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005; and Borshchevskiy v. Russia, cited above, § 51).

34. The Government submitted that, in view of the fact that on 18 July 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don had examined the claims identical to those dealt with by the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region on 15 September 2004 and found for the applicant, as well as the fact that on 24 October 2005 the former judgment had been enforced, the quashing of the judgment of 15 September 2004 and subsequent discontinuation of these proceedings did not amount to an interference with the applicant's property rights.

35. The Court is not convinced that the applicant's claims as examined by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don on 18 July 2005 were indeed the same as those examined by the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region on 15 September 2004. However, assuming that it is so, the Court observes that the quashing of the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of supervisory review led to a situation where the amount awarded to the applicant went from RUR 252,510.91 to RUR 14,038.44. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of supervisory review frustrated the applicant's reliance on a binding judicial decision and deprived him of an opportunity to receive the money he had legitimately expected to receive. Furthermore, the quashing of the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on the applicant and was therefore incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of lengthy

non-enforcement of the Judicial decision

36. The applicant further complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2004. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, cited above.

A. Admissibility

37. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

38. The Government submitted that contrary to the requirements of the domestic law (Section 133 of the 2004 Federal Budget Act and Section 109 of the 2005 Federal Budget Act) the applicant submitted the warrant of execution directly to the debtor, whereas he was supposed to submit it with the competent department of the Federal Treasury. Therefore, the applicant was responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgment up until 5 October 2005 when the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the supervisory review proceedings.

39. The applicant responded that he had submitted the warrant of execution to the Commission in accordance with Section 56 of the Federal Law of 12 February 1993 4468-1 on provision of pensions for the retired military servicemen and Section 2.2.2 of the Agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation N 01-01-06/03-1710 of 31 December 2002, in force at the material time. In support of his argument the applicant submitted the replies of the local branch of the Federal Treasury to other retired servicemen who initially submitted the warrants of execution with the Treasury. In those replies the abovementioned persons were referred directly to the Military Service Commission responsible for assignment and payment of pension benefits to the retired military servicemen.

40. Furthermore, the Government advanced the argument that as the judgment of 15 September 2004 had been passed in breach of the substantive domestic law, on which ground it had been quashed by way of supervisory review, the delay in its enforcement was justified.

41. The applicant asserted on this point that the judgment of 15 September 2004 provided for its immediate enforcement, and, therefore, the Government's argument was unconvincing.

42. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that on 15 September 2004 the applicant obtained a judgment by which the Military Service Commission was to pay him a certain sum of money. The judgment provided for its immediate enforcement. From that moment on, it was incumbent on the debtor, a State agency, to comply with it. On 25 September 2004 the judgment became legally binding since no appeal was lodged against it. The Town Court issued the applicant with a warrant of execution, and it was submitted to the debtor on 11 October 2004. However, no attempts were made to execute the judgment. The Rostov Regional Court's decision of 5 October 2005 had the effect of staying the enforcement proceedings but did not affect the validity of the underlying judgment which remained unenforced on that date (see paragraph 14 above). The launching of the supervisory review procedure could not, in itself, extinguish the debtor's obligation to comply with an enforceable judgment which obligation existed until its quashing by the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court in supervisory review procedure on 12 January 2006.

43. It follows that at least between 15 September 2004 and 12 January 2006 the judgment in the applicant's favour was "enforceable" and it was incumbent on the State agency to abide by its terms. In any event, the Court reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a manner which has been found to have been incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's "right to a court" cannot be accepted as a justification for the failure to enforce that judgment (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, No. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).

44. As to the Government's argument concerning the failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements of the domestic law when submitting the warrant of execution, the Court recalls 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 Metaxas v. Greece, No. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Gorokhov and Rusyayev, No. 38305/02, § 33, 17 March 2005; Koltsov v. Russia, No. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).

45. 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, for example, Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, No. 25964/02, 24 February 2005, Wasserman v. Russia (No. 1), No. 15021/02, 18 November 2004, and Sukhobokov, cited above).

46. Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the Government did not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. They did not advance any plausible justification for the delay in enforcement. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated his "right to a court" and prevented him from receiving the money which he was entitled to receive.

47. The Court finds accordingly that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour.