THIRD SECTION
CASE OF RAZMANOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 42925/18)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
11 February 2021
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Razmanova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Dmitry Dedov,
 Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 August 2018. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision in her favour. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained exclusively under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in her favour. That Convention provision insofar as relevant reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
6. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 7. In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour. 9.

Outcome for Article 6: violation