Право
Навигация

 

Реклама




 

 

Ресурсы в тему

 

Реклама

Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси

 

СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости

 

Рейтинг@Mail.ru


Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)

 

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 03.11.2005 ДЕЛО КУКАЛО (KUKALO) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад

                                
                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                       CASE OF KUKALO v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 63995/00)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                        (Strasbourg, 3.XI.2005)
                                   
   --------------------------------
       <*>  This  judgment will become final in the circumstances  set
   out  in  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention. It may  be  subject  to
   editorial revision.
   
       In the case of Kukalo v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mr P. Lorenzen,
       Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mrs E. Steiner,
       Mr K. Hajiyev, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 13 October 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
   
                               PROCEDURE
   
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 63995/00) 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  a  Russian  national,   Mikhail
   Mikhaylovich Kukalo ("the applicant"), on 17 October 2000.
       2.  The  applicant was represented by Mr I.V. Kokorin, a lawyer
   practising  in  Kurgan. The Russian Government  ("the  Government")
   were  represented by Mr P.A. Laptev, Representative of the  Russian
   Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  The applicant alleged, in particular, that a prolonged non-
   execution  of  final judgments in his favour was incompatible  with
   the Convention.
       4.  The  application was allocated to the First Section of  the
   Court  (Rule  52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within  that  Section,
   the  Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з  1  of  the
   Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
       5.  By  a  decision  of  3 June 2004, the  Court  declared  the
   application partly admissible.
       6.  The applicant and the Government each filed observations on
   the merits (Rule 59 з 1).
       7.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its
   Sections  (Rule  25  з  1). This case was  assigned  to  the  newly
   composed First Section (Rule 52 з 1).
   
                               THE FACTS
                                   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
                                   
       8. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kurgan.
       9.  In  1986 the applicant was called up by the authorities  to
   take  part  in  emergency operations at the site of  the  Chernobyl
   nuclear  plant  disaster. As a result, the applicant suffered  from
   extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.
       10. In 1997 following an expert opinion of 14 April 1997, which
   established  the link between the applicant's poor health  and  his
   involvement  in  the  Chernobyl events, the applicant  was  granted
   monthly health damage compensation.
                                   
      A. Judgment of 12 May 1999 as clarified on 7 September 1999
                                   
       11.  On  18  February  1999 the applicant  brought  proceedings
   against  the  Kurgan Social Security Service (МУ "Центр  социальной
   защиты   населения  г.  Кургана")  to  challenge  the   amount   of
   compensation which he considered to be erroneous.
       12.  On  12  May  1999  the Kurgan Town  Court  found  for  the
   applicant  and ordered the Social Security Service to make  monthly
   compensation  payments of 1,350.58 Russian roubles  (RUR)  and  pay
   outstanding  amount  due from 14 April 1997. The  parties  did  not
   appeal, and the judgment entered into force on 25 May 1999.
       13.   Following  the  applicant's  request,  the   Town   Court
   clarified,  by its decision of 7 September 1999 which became  final
   on   18   September  1999,  that  the  amount  of  the  outstanding
   compensation totalled RUR 24,495.94.
       14. The judgment of 12 May 1999 was executed on 6 October 2000.
                                   
        B. Judgment of 21 July 1999 as upheld on 5 October 1999
                                   
       15.  On  an  unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings
   against  the  Social  Security Service for damages  caused  by  the
   delay in execution of the judgment of 12 May 1999.
       16.  On  21  July  1999 the Town Court found  that  the  Social
   Security  Service had failed to comply timely with the judgment  of
   12  May  1999 and awarded the applicant RUR 1,000 as a penalty  for
   the delay.
       17.  On  5  October 1999 the Kurgan Regional Court  upheld  the
   judgment on appeal.
       18.  On 18 October 1999 the Kurgan Bailiff's Service instituted
   enforcement proceedings.
       19.  The  judgment of 21 July 1999 was executed  on  26  August
   2002.
                                   
         C. Judgment of 10 May 2000 as upheld on 22 June 2000
                                   
       20. On 10 May 2000 the Town Court allowed the applicant's claim
   against  the  Kurgan Town Council for provision of  State  housing,
   for  which  he was eligible as a participant of the liquidation  of
   the  Chernobyl  disaster. The court ordered  the  Town  Council  to
   provide  the  applicant  and his wife with  separate  well-equipped
   residential premises located in the town of Kurgan, complying  with
   sanitary and technical standards, having total surface of  no  less
   than 52 sq. m., taking into account the applicant's entitlement  to
   one additional room.
       21.  On 22 June 2000 the Regional Court upheld the judgment  on
   appeal.
       22.  On  10  July 2000 the Kurgan Bailiff's Service  instituted
   enforcement proceedings.
       23.  The  Town Council requested for deferment in execution  of
   the  judgment  until 1 July 2001 for the reasons  of  the  lack  of
   relevant  provisions in the town budget for the year 2000  and  big
   expenses  incurred  by  the Town Council  in  connection  with  the
   repair  of damage caused by flood. By its decision of 17 July  2000
   the Town Court granted the deferment until 31 December 2000.
       24. At the beginning of 2001 the Town Council asked for another
   deferment  explaining  that  the town  had  to  finance  preventive
   measures  in  connection with the new threat  of  flood  in  spring
   2001.  As  the  local  authority did  not  carry  out  any  housing
   construction,  the execution of the applicant's judgment  was  only
   possible  by  acquiring a flat on the market. On 20  February  2001
   the  court granted the deferment until 1 October 2001. On 29  March
   2001  this  decision  was upheld on appeal by the  Kurgan  Regional
   Court.
       25.  On  20  November 2001 the applicant lodged an  application
   with  the Town Council asking it to acquire for him a flat  located
   at  26  Blyukher street No. 27 with a total surface of 56.2 sq.  m.
   The   applicant  stated  that  he  undertook  to  make  a   partial
   contribution in the amount of RUR 65,000 towards the  cost  of  the
   flat.  The applicant also stated in the application that  he  would
   not  have any further claims to the Town Council if his request was
   granted.
       26.  By  Resolution  of 21 December 2001 the  Mayor  of  Kurgan
   ordered to grant the applicant a flat at 26 Blyukher street No.  27
   of  56.2  sq. m. total surface in execution of the judgment  of  10
   May 2000.
                                   
                      D. Judgment of 16 May 2000
                                   
       27.  In  February  2000  the applicant brought  another  action
   against the Social Security Service to challenge the amount of  the
   compensation.
       28.   On   16  May  2000  the  Town  Court  fixed  the  monthly
   compensation  at  RUR 1,814.13 starting from 8 February  2000.  The
   parties did not appeal, and the judgment came into force on 27  May
   2000.
       29.  On  5  June  2000 the Kurgan Bailiff's Service  instituted
   enforcement proceedings.
       30. The judgment of 16 May 2000 was enforced on 26 August 2002.
                                   
                       II. Relevant domestic law
                                   
                      A. Enforcement proceedings
                                   
       31.  Section 9 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act (Law No. 119-
   FZ  of 21 July 1997) provides that a bailiff's order on institution
   of   enforcement  proceedings  must  fix  a  time-limit   for   the
   defendant's  voluntary  compliance with a writ  of  execution.  The
   time-limit  may  not exceed five days. The bailiff must  also  warn
   the   defendant  that  coercive  action  will  follow  should   the
   defendant  fail to comply with the time-limit. Pursuant to  section
   13,  the  enforcement  proceedings must  be  completed  within  two
   months of the receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff.
                                   
         B. Implementation of the right to a "social tenancy"
                                   
       32.  The  RSFSR  Housing Code (Law of 24 June  1983,  effective
   until  1  March 2005) provided that Russian citizens were  entitled
   to  possess  flats owned by the State or municipal  authorities  or
   other  public  bodies,  under  the terms  of  a  tenancy  agreement
   (section   10).  Certain  "protected"  categories  of   individuals
   (disabled   persons,  war  veterans,  Chernobyl   victims,   police
   officers,  judges, etc.) had a right to priority treatment  in  the
   allocation of flats.
       33.  A decision on granting a flat was to be implemented by way
   of  issuing the citizen with an occupancy voucher (ордер  на  жилое
   помещение)  from  the local municipal authority (section  47).  The
   voucher  served  as  the legal basis for taking possession  of  the
   flat  designated therein and for the signing of a tenancy agreement
   between  the  landlord,  the  tenant and  the  housing  maintenance
   authority  (section 51, and also Articles 672 and 674 of the  Civil
   Code).
       34.  Members  of  the  tenant's family (including  the  spouse,
   children, parents, disabled dependants and other persons)  had  the
   same  rights  and  obligations under the tenancy agreement  as  the
   tenant (section 53). The tenant had the right to accommodate  other
   persons  in  the  flat (section 54). In the event of  the  tenant's
   death, an adult member of the tenant's family succeeded him or  her
   as a party to the tenancy agreement (section 88).
       35.  Flats  were  granted for permanent use (section  10).  The
   tenant  could  terminate the tenancy agreement at any moment,  with
   the  consent  of  his  or  her  family members  (section  89).  The
   landlord could terminate the agreement on the grounds provided  for
   by  law and on the basis of a court decision (sections 89 - 90). If
   the  agreement was terminated because the house was no  longer  fit
   for  living  in, the tenant and family were to receive a substitute
   flat  with full amenities (section 91). Tenants or members of their
   family   could   be   evicted  without  provision   of   substitute
   accommodation  only  if they "systematically destroyed  or  damaged
   the  flat",  "used  it  for  purposes  other  than  residence"   or
   "systematically breached the [generally accepted rules of  conduct]
   making life with others impossible" (section 98).
       36.  The  tenant had the right to exchange the flat for another
   flat  in  the State or municipal housing, including across  regions
   (section  67). An exchange involved reciprocal transfer  of  rights
   and  obligations under the respective tenancy agreements and became
   final  from  the moment of issuing new occupancy vouchers  (section
   71).  "Speculative"  or  sham exchanges  were  prohibited  (section
   73(2)).
                                   
                       C. Rent for State housing
                                   
       37.  The  Federal  Housing Policy Act (Law  No.  4218-I  of  24
   December  1992) provides that the payments for a flat comprise  (i)
   a  housing  maintenance charge, (ii) a housing repair charge,  and,
   in  the  case  of  tenants  only,  (iii)  rent  (section  15).  The
   maintenance  and  repair  charges  do  not  depend  on  the  flat's
   ownership,  whether  private or State. Rent is  fixed  by  regional
   authorities,  taking into account the surface area and  quality  of
   the  housing.  It  is usually considerably lower  than  free-market
   rent.  For example, the highest monthly rent for municipal  housing
   in  Moscow  is 80 kopecks (0.02 euro) per square metre  (Resolution
   of the Moscow Government No. 863-PP of 7 December 2004).
                                   
                   D. Privatisation of State housing
                                   
       38.  In  1991, the Privatisation of Housing Act (Law No. 1541-I
   of  4  July  1991) was adopted (it will remain effective  until  31
   December  2006).  It grants Russian citizens the right  to  acquire
   title  to State and municipal-owned flats of which they have  taken
   possession on the basis of a social tenancy agreement (section  2).
   The  acquisition  of  title does not require  any  payment  or  fee
   (section 7). The right to privatisation can be exercised once in  a
   lifetime (section 11) and requires the consent of all adult  family
   members.
                                   
                                THE LAW
                                   
               I. The Government's preliminary objection
                                   
       39.  In  their observations of 1 September 2004 the  Government
   submitted  that by a judgment of the Kurgan Town Court  of  6  June
   2003  the  amounts  due  to the applicant under  judgments  of  the
   Kurgan Town Court of 26 April 2000, 16 May 2000 (RUR 5,188)  and  6
   February 2001 were index-linked in line with inflation in  view  of
   the  delay in execution of those judgments. The Government  further
   submitted  that as a part of their friendly settlement efforts  the
   applicant  was offered compensation of non-pecuniary damage  caused
   by  the  delay in execution of the judgments, on condition that  he
   would  withdraw  his  application from  the  Court.  The  applicant
   refused. The Government concluded that the applicant's rights  were
   restored  and  invited the Court to discontinue the examination  of
   the complaint in accordance with Article 37 з 1 of the Convention.
       40.  In  their  letter of 1 March 2005 the  Government  further
   reiterated  that  since  the applicant had refused  to  accept  the
   settlement of the case on the terms proposed by the Government,  he
   lost  his  victim's  status. Therefore his  application  should  be
   struck out of the Court's list of cases.
       41.  The  applicant disagreed and invited the Court to  proceed
   with the examination of the case.
       42. The Court notes first that the judgment of 6 June 2003,  to
   which  the  Government referred, concerned judgments of the  Kurgan
   Town  Court  of  26 April 2000 and 6 February 2001  which  are  not
   within  the  scope of the Court's examination in the present  case.
   It  also  concerned a judgment of the Kurgan Town Court of  16  May
   2000  by  which  the applicant was awarded RUR 5,188.  The  present
   case  however concerns only the judgment of the same date by  which
   the   Kurgan  Town  Court  ordered  the  payment  of  the   monthly
   compensation  in  the  amount  of  RUR  1,814.13  starting  from  8
   February  2000  (see  paragraph 28 above). In the  absence  of  any
   explanations  by  the  Government about those inconsistencies,  the
   Court  does  not  find it necessary to examine their  objection  in
   this respect.
       43. As regards the applicant's refusal to accept the settlement
   of  the  case  proposed by the Government, the Court  recalls  that
   under  certain  circumstances an application may indeed  be  struck
   out  under Article 37 з 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis  of  a
   unilateral  declaration by the respondent Government  even  if  the
   applicant  wishes the examination of the case to be continued  (see
   Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], No. 26307/95, з 76, ECHR 2003-...).  It
   notes,  however, that this procedure is an exceptional one  and  is
   not, as such, intended to circumvent the applicant's opposition  to
   a   friendly   settlement.  Furthermore,  it  observes   that   the
   Government  failed  to submit with the Court any formal  unilateral
   declaration  capable  of offering a sufficient  basis  for  finding
   that  respect  for human rights as defined in the  Convention  does
   not  require  the  Court to continue its examination  of  the  case
   (see,  by  contrast,  Aleksentseva and 28 Others  v.  Russia,  Nos.
   75025/01 et seq., 4 September 2003).
       44.  In view of the above considerations, the Court rejects the
   Government's  request to strike the application out  under  Article
   37  of  the  Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination
   of the merits of the case.
                                   
       II. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
                    and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
                                   
       45.  The  applicant  complained that the prolonged  failure  to
   enforce  the judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7  September
   1999,  21  July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, 10 May 2000,  as
   upheld  on 22 June 2000, and 16 May 2000 violated Article 6 of  the
   Convention  and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of  possessions
   under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of Article  6
   provide as follows:
       "In  the  determination of his civil rights and obligations...,
   everyone   is   entitled   to  a  fair...  hearing...   by   [a]...
   tribunal..."
       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows:
       "Every  natural  or legal person is entitled  to  the  peaceful
   enjoyment  of  his  possessions. No one shall be  deprived  of  his
   possessions  except  in  the public interest  and  subject  to  the
   conditions  provided  for by law and by the general  principles  of
   international law.
       The  preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair
   the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary  to
   control  the  use  of  property  in  accordance  with  the  general
   interest  or  to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions
   or penalties."
                                   
                      A. The parties' submissions
                                   
       46.  The Government, in their observations of 1 September 2004,
   submitted  that the judgments had been enforced and  the  delay  in
   their  enforcement had been objectively justified. Thus,  when  the
   execution  of  the judgment of 10 May 2000 was pending  there  were
   14,310  individuals  who were registered by  the  Town  Council  as
   those  entitled  to  the  provision of free housing,  including  43
   Chernobyl  victims.  Giving  priority treatment  to  the  applicant
   would  have breached the rights of others. Taking into account  the
   deferments  of  the  enforcement of the judgment  of  10  May  2000
   granted by the Kurgan Town Court, the period of the enforcement  of
   that   judgment   should  not  be  considered   unreasonable.   The
   Government  noted  that  a State flat previously  occupied  by  the
   applicant was let for other members of the applicant's family.
       47.  The  applicant submitted that the reason for the prolonged
   non-execution  of the judgments was not the lack of funds  but  the
   failure  of  the State to carry out its commitments in relation  to
   the  Chernobyl  victims. The delays in execution of  the  judgments
   undermined  his right to benefit from the results of the litigation
   especially taking into account the high level of inflation  in  the
   country.  As  regards  the judgment of 10 May 2000,  the  applicant
   submitted  that  the flat granted to him required major  renovation
   works.  His  request  to the Town Council for  acquiring  the  flat
   which  was  eventually  granted to him  was  written  under  duress
   because  otherwise  he  would  have  waited  for  a  flat  for   an
   indefinite period of time.
                                   
                       B. The Court's assessment
                                   
        1. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
                                   
       48. The Court reiterates that Article 6 з 1 secures to everyone
   the  right  to  have  any claim relating to his  civil  rights  and
   obligations  brought before a court or tribunal;  in  this  way  it
   embodies  the  "right to a court", of which the  right  of  access,
   that  is the right to institute proceedings before courts in  civil
   matters,  constitutes  one aspect. However,  that  right  would  be
   illusory  if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed  a
   final,  binding  judicial  decision to remain  inoperative  to  the
   detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6  з
   1  should describe in detail the procedural guarantees afforded  to
   litigants  -  proceedings that are fair, public and  expeditious  -
   without  protecting  the implementation of judicial  decisions;  to
   construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to  a
   court  and  the conduct of proceedings would be likely to  lead  to
   situations  incompatible with the principle  of  the  rule  of  law
   which  the  Contracting  States  undertook  to  respect  when  they
   ratified  the  Convention. Execution of a  judgment  given  by  any
   court  must  therefore  be  regarded as an  integral  part  of  the
   "trial"  for  the purposes of Article 6 (see Burdov v. Russia,  No.
   59498/00,  з 34, ECHR 2002-III; Hornsby v. Greece, judgment  of  19
   March  1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510,  з
   40).
       49. The Court further reiterates that it is not open to a State
   authority  to  cite the lack of funds or other resources  (such  as
   housing)   as  an  excuse  for  not  honouring  a  judgment   debt.
   Admittedly,  a  delay  in  the  execution  of  a  judgment  may  be
   justified  in particular circumstances, but the delay  may  not  be
   such  as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article
   6  з  1. The applicant should not be prevented from benefiting from
   the  success  of the litigation on the ground of alleged  financial
   difficulties experienced by the State (see Burdov, cited  above,  з
   35).
       50.  The  present  case  concerns  one  judgment  awarding  the
   applicant housing and three judgments awarding him monetary  funds.
   The  Court will examine the situation in relation to each  category
   in turn.
       (a) Judgment of 10 May 2000 as upheld on 22 June 2000
       51.  The Court notes that the judgment of 10 May 2000, by which
   the  applicant was to be granted housing, remained unenforced until
   21  December 2001, for about a year and a half. In so  far  as  the
   applicant  may be understood as alleging that the flat  granted  to
   him  did  not meet the terms of the judgment, the Court notes  that
   on  20  November  2001  the applicant asked  the  Town  Council  to
   acquire  for  him  that  specific  flat  undertaking  to   make   a
   contribution  towards its cost and stating that he would  not  have
   any  further claims with respect to the housing if his request  was
   granted.  It  appears  that following the applicant's  request  the
   Town  Council  acquired the flat and let it to the applicant  on  a
   "social  tenancy"  agreement.  There  is  no  indication  that  the
   applicant  ever  complained in domestic court or before  any  other
   competent  authority that he lodged the application of 20  November
   2001  under  duress,  that  the  Town  Council  had  to  repay  his
   contribution  or  that  the flat did not  meet  the  terms  of  the
   judgment  of 10 May 2000. In these circumstances the Court  accepts
   the  Government's  view  that the judgment was  enforced.  It  will
   further   examine   whether  the  delay  in  its  enforcement   was
   justified.
       52.  The Court notes that the Kurgan Town Court granted on  two
   occasions   deferments   in  execution   of   the   judgment,   for
   approximately  five  and  six months, in  both  instances  for  the
   reason  of the lack of financial resources taking into account  the
   need  to  finance flood defence works. Though the alleged  lack  of
   State  funds  cannot as such serve an excuse for  not  honouring  a
   judgment  debt, the delay of a year and a half in the circumstances
   does  not  appear  to  have  impaired  the  essence  of  the  right
   protected under Article 6 з 1.
       53. There has, therefore, been no violation of Article 6 з 1 of
   the Convention.
       (b) Judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7 September 1999,
   21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, and 16 May 2000
       54.  The  Court notes that the judgment of 12 May 1999 remained
   inoperative for more than a year and four months, including a  year
   after the judgment of 21 July 1999 had been adopted to redress  the
   non-enforcement of the first one. The judgment of 21 July 1999,  in
   its  turn,  remained inoperative for more than two  years  and  ten
   months.  As regards the judgment of 16 May 2000, it took the  State
   more  than two years and two months to enforce it. No justification
   was  advanced  by  the  Government  for  those  delays.  The  Court
   considers  that  in  the circumstances, by failing  for  the  above
   periods  of time to take the necessary measures to comply with  the
   final   judicial  decisions  in  the  present  case,  the   Russian
   authorities have deprived the provisions of Article 6 з  1  of  all
   useful effect.
       55. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з 1  of
   the Convention.
                                   
          2. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
                                   
       56.  The  Court  reiterates at the outset that the  concept  of
   "possessions" in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  has
   an  autonomous  meaning  which  is  not  limited  to  ownership  of
   physical  goods  and is independent from the formal  classification
   in  domestic  law: certain other rights and interests  constituting
   assets  can  also  be  regarded as property  rights,  and  thus  as
   "possessions"  for the purposes of this provision (see  Beyeler  v.
   Italy  [GC],  No.  33202/96, з 100, ECHR 2000-I,  and  Iatridis  v.
   Greece [GC], No. 31107/96, з 54, ECHR 1999-II).
       57.  The  Court  further recalls that the right to  any  social
   benefit  is  not  included as such among the  rights  and  freedoms
   guaranteed  by the Convention (see, for example, Aunola v.  Finland
   (dec.),  No.  30517/96, 15 March 2001). The  right  to  live  in  a
   particular  property not owned by the applicant does  not  as  such
   constitute  a  "possession" within the  meaning  of  Article  1  of
   Protocol  No.  1  (see  H.F. v. Slovakia (dec.),  No.  54797/00,  9
   December  2003;  Kovalenok  v.  Latvia  (dec.),  No.  54264/00,  15
   February  2001, and J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), No. 41917/98, 27  April
   1999).
       58.  However,  pecuniary assets, such as debts,  by  virtue  of
   which  the  applicant  can claim to have  at  least  a  "legitimate
   expectation"  of  obtaining  effective enjoyment  of  a  particular
   pecuniary  asset  may also fall within the notion of  "possessions"
   contained  in  Article  1  of  Protocol  No.  1  (see  Pine  Valley
   Developments  Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment  of  29  November
   1991, Series A No. 222, p. 23, з 51; Pressos Compania Naviera  S.A.
   and  Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A  No.
   332,  p.  21,  з  31,  and, mutatis mutandis,  S.A.  Dangeville  v.
   France,  No.  36677/97, зз 44 - 48, ECHR 2002-III). In  particular,
   the  Court  has  consistently held that  a  "claim"  -  even  to  a
   particular  social  benefit - can constitute a "possession"  within
   the  meaning  of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is  sufficiently
   established  to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, cited  above,
   з  40,  and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece,
   judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A No. 301-B, p. 84, з 59).
       (a) Judgment of 10 May 2000 as upheld on 22 June 2000
       59.  Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court  notes
   that by virtue of the judgment of 10 May 2000 the town council  was
   to   put   at   the  applicant's  disposal  a  flat  with   certain
   characteristics.  The judgment did not require the  authorities  to
   give  him  ownership of a particular flat, but rather obliged  them
   to  issue  him  with an occupancy voucher in respect  of  any  flat
   satisfying  the  court-defined  criteria.  On  the  basis  of   the
   voucher,  a  so-called "social tenancy agreement" would  have  been
   signed  between  the competent authority and the applicant,  acting
   as  the  principal tenant on behalf of himself and the  members  of
   his  family (see paragraph 33 above). Under the terms of a  "social
   tenancy  agreement", as established in the RSFSR Housing  Code  and
   the  applicable regulations, the applicant would have had  a  right
   to  possess and make use of the flat and, under certain conditions,
   to  privatise  it  in  accordance with the Privatisation  of  State
   Housing Act.
       60.  Accordingly, from the moment the judgment of 10  May  2000
   was  issued,  the  applicant  has had  an  established  "legitimate
   expectation" to acquire a pecuniary asset. The judgment  was  final
   as  no  ordinary appeal lay against it, and enforcement proceedings
   were instituted.
       61. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant's claim
   to  a  "social  tenancy agreement" was sufficiently established  to
   constitute a "possession" falling within the ambit of Article 1  of
   Protocol No. 1 (see Teteriny v. Russia, No. 11931/03, зз 45  -  50,
   30 June 2005).
       62.  Similarly  to  its finding in paragraph 52  above,  having
   regard  to  domestic courts' decisions granting  the  Town  Council
   deferments  (see  paragraphs 23 and 24 above), the Court  considers
   that  the  interference  with  the applicant's  right  to  peaceful
   enjoyment  of his possessions by a delay of a year and  a  half  in
   the execution of the judgment in the circumstances was not such  as
   to  have  entailed  an  individual  and  excessive  burden  on  the
   applicant.
       63.  There  has, therefore, been no violation of Article  1  of
   Protocol No. 1.
       (b) Judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7 September 1999,
   21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, and 16 May 2000
       64.  The judgments of 12 May 1999, 21 July 1999 and 16 May 2000
   provided  the applicant with an enforceable claim and not simply  a
   general  right  to  receive support from the State.  The  judgments
   became  final  on  25  May 1999, 5 October 1999  and  27  May  2000
   respectively.  It follows that the impossibility for the  applicant
   to  have  those judgments enforced for the periods of more  than  a
   year  and  four months, two years and ten months and two years  and
   two  months,  accordingly,  constituted an  interference  with  his
   right  to  peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as set  forth  in
   the  first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol
   No. 1.
       65. Not having found any justification for such an interference
   (see  paragraph  54  above), the Court  concludes  that  there  has
   accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to  the
   Convention.
                                   
           III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
                                   
       66. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
       "If  the  Court  finds that there has been a violation  of  the
   Convention  or  the Protocols thereto, and if the internal  law  of
   the   High   Contracting  Party  concerned  allows   only   partial
   reparation  to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford  just
   satisfaction to the injured party."
                                   
                               A. Damage
                                   
       67. In so far as the judgments of 12 May 1999, 21 July 1999 and
   16  May 2000 are concerned, the applicant claims 50,000 euros (EUR)
   by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
       68.  The  Government considered that should the  Court  find  a
   violation  in this case that would in itself constitute  sufficient
   just  satisfaction.  They also contended  that  in  any  event  the
   applicant's  claim was excessive and if the Court decided  to  make
   an  award it should comply with the amount awarded by the Court  in
   the Burdov v. Russia case.
       69.  The  Court considers that the applicant must have suffered
   certain   distress  and  frustration  resulting  from   the   State
   authorities'  failure  to enforce judgments in  his  favour,  which
   cannot  sufficiently be compensated by the finding of a  violation.
   However,  the  amount claimed appears excessive.  The  Court  takes
   into  account  the  award it made in the case of Burdov  v.  Russia
   (cited  above,  з  47), the nature and the amounts  of  the  awards
   whose  non-enforcement was at issue in the present case, the  delay
   before  the  enforcement  and other relevant  aspects.  Making  its
   assessment  on  an  equitable basis, it awards  the  applicant  EUR
   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may  be
   chargeable on that amount.
                                   
                         B. Costs and expenses
                                   
       70.  The  applicant  sought  reimbursement  of  his  costs  and
   expenses  incurred  before domestic courts in  the  amount  of  EUR
   2,000.  However, he did not submit any receipts or  other  vouchers
   in  support of his claim. Accordingly, the Court does not make  any
   award under this head.
                                   
                          C. Default interest
                                   
       71.  The  Court  considers  it  appropriate  that  the  default
   interest  should  be  based on the marginal  lending  rate  of  the
   European  Central  Bank, to which should be added three  percentage
   points.
                                   
               FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
                                   
       1. Dismisses the Government's preliminary objection;
       2.  Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 з 1  of
   the  Convention  and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 in respect  of  the
   enforcement  of the judgment of 10 May 2000 as upheld  on  22  June
   2000;
       3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з  1  of
   the  Convention  and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 in respect  of  the
   enforcement  of  the judgments of 12 May 1999, as  clarified  on  7
   September 1999, 21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999,  and  16
   May 2000;
       4. Holds
       (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,  within
   three  months  from  the date on which the judgment  becomes  final
   according  to  Article 44 з 2 of the Convention, EUR  3,000  (three
   thousand  euros)  in  respect  of  non-pecuniary  damage,   to   be
   converted  into  the national currency of the respondent  State  at
   the  rate  applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax  that
   may be chargeable on that amount;
       (b)  that  from the expiry of the above-mentioned three  months
   until  settlement  simple interest shall be payable  on  the  above
   amount  at  a  rate  equal  to the marginal  lending  rate  of  the
   European  Central  Bank  during  the  default  period  plus   three
   percentage points;
       5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim  for  just
   satisfaction.
   
       Done  in  English, and notified in writing on 3 November  2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
   
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                             President
                                                                      
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN
                                                             Registrar
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости


Реклама

Новости сайта Тюрьма


Hosted by uCoz