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 30.06.2005 ДЕЛО ТЕТЕРИНЫ (TETERINY) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад


                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                      CASE OF TETERINY v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 11931/03)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 30.VI.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 Teteriny v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mrs E. Steiner,
       Mr K. Hajiyev,
       Mr D. Spielmann,
       Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 9 June 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
   
                               PROCEDURE
   
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 11931/03) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr  Anatoliy
   Grigoryevich  Teterin  and  Ms  Tamara  Vasilyevna  Teterina  ("the
   applicants"),  on 25 February 2003. The second applicant  was  also
   the first applicant's representative before the Court.
       2.  The  Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
   by  Mr  P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at  the
   European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  On 6 September 2003 the Court decided to communicate to the
   Government   the  complaint  concerning  non-enforcement   of   the
   judgment  of 26 September 1994. Under the provisions of Article  29
   з  3  of  the Convention, it decided to examine the merits  of  the
   application at the same time as its admissibility.
   
                               THE FACTS
   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
   
       4.  The applicants were born in 1954 and 1955 respectively, and
   live  in  Syktyvkar  in the Komi Republic. They  are  both  retired
   judges.
       5.  On  26 September 1994 the Ezhvinskiy District Court of  the
   Komi  Republic  allowed  the first applicant's  claim  against  the
   Yemva  Town  Council for provision of State housing, for  which  he
   was eligible as a judge. The court ordered the town council to:
       "...grant  or  purchase for Mr Teterin, whose family  comprises
   five  members,  a  separate  well-equipped  flat  or  house  taking
   account  of the plaintiff's entitlement to one additional  room  or
   having  a  habitable  surface of no less  than  65  square  metres,
   located  near the Knyazhpogostskiy District Court in  the  town  of
   Yemva".
       6.  No  appeal was brought against the judgment and  it  became
   final and enforceable ten days later.
       7.  In  October  1994 enforcement proceedings were  instituted.
   However,  the  judgment  could not be  enforced  because  the  town
   authorities did not possess any available housing or the  financial
   resources to purchase a flat.
       8.  The  applicants  complained to  the  Courts  Administration
   Department  at  the  Supreme Court of the Russian  Federation,  the
   Court  Bailiffs'  Department  of the Ministry  of  Justice  of  the
   Russian  Federation and the Court Bailiffs' Department of the  Komi
   Republic  Department  of  Justice. The responses  received  by  the
   applicants in 2001 and 2002 indicated that the judgment  could  not
   be enforced as the town authorities had no available housing.
       9.  In  2002  the  first applicant applied  to  the  Ezhvinskiy
   District Court with a request to change the method of execution  of
   the  judgment of 26 September 1994. He asked that the value of  the
   flat be paid to him in cash.
       10.  On 24 April 2002 the Ezhvinskiy District Court closed  the
   proceedings  for  the  amendment  of  the  judgment  as  the  first
   applicant had withdrawn his request.
       11.  On  23  August  2002 a court bailiff reopened  enforcement
   proceedings  and ordered the Knyazhpogostskiy District  Council  to
   execute the judgment.
       12.  On 30 January 2003 the enforcement proceedings were closed
   because  enforcement  was not possible. On the  following  day  the
   writ of execution was returned to the first applicant.
       13.  Further to the applicants' complaint, on 3 March 2003  the
   Knyazhpogostskiy District Court quashed the bailiff's  decision  to
   terminate the proceedings.
       14.  The  proceedings were resumed on 7 May 2003.  The  bailiff
   collected  information on the cash flows and  funds  of  the  Yemva
   Town Council.
       15.  On  7  July 2003 the bailiff discontinued the  enforcement
   proceedings on account of the town council's lack of funds for  the
   construction  or  purchase of housing. The writ  of  execution  was
   returned  to  the  Ezhvinskiy District Court. The  first  applicant
   submits  that  a copy of that decision was not served  on  him  and
   that  he  first became aware of it upon receipt of the Government's
   memorandum of 1 December 2003, to which it was attached.
       16. On 19 January 2004 the Yemva Town Council offered the first
   applicant  a  two-room  flat  of  25  square  metres  with  central
   heating. It noted that no State housing had been constructed  since
   1994  and that it was therefore not in a position to offer  a  flat
   with  full  amenities. The applicants did not accept the offer.  On
   17  December  2004 the enforcement proceedings were  re-opened  and
   they are now pending.
       17. The judgment of 26 September 1994 has not been enforced  to
   date.
   
                       II. Relevant domestic law
   
                      A. Enforcement proceedings
   
       18.  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"
   
       19.  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.
       20.  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).
       21.  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).
       22.  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).
       23.  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
   
       24.  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
   
       25.  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. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1
         of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
   
       26.  The  applicants complained that the continued  failure  to
   enforce the judgment of 26 September 1994 violated their "right  to
   a  court" under Article 6 of the Convention and their 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. Admissibility
   
                     1. The Government's objection
              as to the second applicant's victim status
   
       27.  The Government submitted that the second applicant was not
   the  victim of the alleged violation. The judgment of 26  September
   1994  had been made in favour of the first applicant alone and  the
   second  applicant  had  merely represented  his  interests  in  the
   enforcement proceedings. She could not claim, therefore,  that  her
   "right to a court" or her property rights had been violated.
       28.  The  applicants  submitted in  reply  that  the  continued
   failure  to  enforce  the  judgment  concerning  the  provision  of
   housing for the entire family had an adverse impact on each  family
   member.   Moreover,   this  situation  had  hindered   the   second
   applicant's  professional activities as she had been challenged  in
   other  proceedings by the district council on the ground  that  she
   could not be impartial.
       29. The Court observes that the claim for housing was lodged by
   the  first applicant and that the judgment of 26 September 1994 was
   made  in  his  favour. That judgment did not determine  the  second
   applicant's  civil rights and obligations and did  not  confer  any
   entitlement on her.
       30. The Court therefore considers that the complaints lodged by
   the  second  applicant  on her own behalf are incompatible  ratione
   personae  with the provisions of the Convention within the  meaning
   of  Article 35 з 3 and must be rejected in accordance with  Article
   35  з 4. The Court will henceforth refer to the first applicant  as
   "the applicant".
   
                     2. The Government's objection
               as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies
   
       31.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed  to
   exhaust  the  domestic remedies available to him. Firstly,  he  had
   not  appealed to a court against the court bailiff's decision of  7
   July   2003   in  which  the  enforcement  proceedings   had   been
   terminated. Secondly, he had not applied for an interest-free  loan
   for  the  purchase  or construction of housing, for  which  federal
   judges  with not less than ten years' professional experience  were
   eligible.  Thirdly, he had not submitted a request to be placed  on
   the  waiting list of persons needing improved housing, which  could
   have  been  examined  by  the  housing  commission  of  the  Courts
   Administration Department of the Komi Republic.
       32. The applicant submitted that he had not been able to appeal
   against  the decision of 7 July 2003, since it had not been  served
   on  him.  The  writ of execution had been returned to the  District
   Court and not to him as the creditor, as required by section 73  of
   the  Enforcement Proceedings Act. Furthermore, on 24 December  2003
   the   court   had  again  forwarded  the  writ  of  execution   for
   enforcement.  As  regards  the interest-free  loan,  the  applicant
   noted  that,  pursuant to section 19 of the Status of  Judges  Act,
   free   housing  was  to  be  provided  to  a  judge  by  the  local
   authorities  within  six months of his or her appointment.  A  loan
   could  be  granted  as  an  alternative  to  free  housing  at  the
   initiative   of  the  authorities.  However,  in   his   case   the
   authorities  had  not  made such an offer. Finally,  the  applicant
   indicated   that   the   proposal  by  the  Courts   Administration
   Department that he apply to be put on the housing waiting list  had
   been  made  in disregard of the existing judgment that had  already
   confirmed his right to a flat.
       33.  The  Court  must first examine whether the  applicant  has
   complied  with  the  rule  of exhaustion of  domestic  remedies  as
   required under Article 35 з 1 of the Convention.
       34. The Court reiterates that Article 35 з 1 of the Convention,
   which  sets  out  the  rule  on exhaustion  of  domestic  remedies,
   provides  for  a  distribution  of  the  burden  of  proof.  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,  was  one  which was 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,  з
   76,  ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), No. 57220/00, з  15,
   ECHR  2002-VIII).  The Court further emphasises that  the  domestic
   remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing  the
   alleged  violation  or its continuation, or of  providing  adequate
   redress  for  any violation that had already occurred (see  {Kudla}
   <*> v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, з 158, ECHR-XI).
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       35.  As  regards  the  possibility of complaining  against  the
   bailiff's  decision to terminate the proceedings, the  Court  notes
   that  the  Government failed to provide any explanation as  to  how
   such  a  complaint could have put an end to the continued violation
   or  to  the  kind  of redress which the applicant could  have  been
   afforded  as  a  result of the complaint. In any event,  the  Court
   observes  that  the applicant did not complain about  any  unlawful
   act  on the part of a bailiff but, rather, about the fact that  the
   judgment  was  not enforced. Even if the applicant  had  brought  a
   complaint  against  the bailiff and obtained a decision  confirming
   that  the  decision  to terminate the enforcement  proceedings  had
   been  unlawful  in domestic terms, such an action would  only  have
   produced  repetitive results, namely a writ of  execution  enabling
   the bailiffs to proceed with the enforcement of the judgment of  26
   September  1994 (see Yavorivskaya v. Russia (dec.),  No.  34687/02,
   15  May  2004, and {Jasiuniene} v. Lithuania (dec.), No.  41510/98,
   24  October  2000). The Court concludes that such an  action  would
   have been ineffective.
       36.  In  so  far  as the Government suggest that the  applicant
   should  have applied for an interest-free loan or for placement  on
   the  housing  waiting list, the Court fails  to  see  how  such  an
   application  could  have  contributed to  the  enforcement  of  the
   judgment.  In  fact,  the  pursuit  of  this  "remedy"  would  have
   required  the  applicant either to purchase a flat at  considerable
   personal  expense, albeit with borrowed money, or to wait his  turn
   indefinitely on the housing list. This could not have improved  the
   situation   of   the  applicant,  who  had  already   obtained   an
   enforceable judgment as a result of successful litigation,  by  the
   terms  of  which a State authority was to grant him a flat  without
   additional  charges or undue delay. Furthermore,  the  decision  to
   grant a loan or place a person on the waiting list depended on  the
   discretionary   powers   vested  in   the   Courts   Administration
   Department.  The  Court  does not accept  that  the  applicant  was
   required  to  exhaust these remedies in order to  comply  with  the
   requirements of Article 35 з 1 of the Convention.
       37.  The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly  ill-
   founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 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  made no comments on  the  merits  of  the
   complaint.  They  claimed,  however, that  the  applicant  and  his
   family  no  longer  needed improved living  conditions  as  he  had
   purchased  a  one-room flat in 2001 and his  spouse  had  bought  a
   three-room flat in Syktyvkar in 2003.
       39.  The applicant contended that the State authorities had had
   ample opportunities to comply with the judgment. Over the last  ten
   years  several  new  blocks of flats had been  built,  including  a
   twenty-flat  block on Pushkin Street in 1997. If  no  flat  of  the
   required  surface  area was available, the authorities  could  have
   granted  him two flats having the same aggregate surface  area,  as
   they   had  done  in  other  cases.  He  submitted  that   he   had
   persistently complained about the failure to enforce the  judgment,
   but to no avail.
   
        1. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
   
       40. 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).
       41. 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).
       42.  Turning  to  the instant case, the Court  notes  that  the
   judgment  of 26 September 1994, by which the applicant  was  to  be
   granted  a  comfortable  flat measuring  no  less  than  65  square
   metres, has remained unenforced in its entirety to date. The  offer
   made  by  the Yemva Town Council in 2004 did not meet the terms  of
   that judgment.
       43.  By  failing  for years to take the necessary  measures  to
   comply  with the final judicial decision in the present  case,  the
   Russian authorities have deprived the provisions of Article 6  з  1
   of all useful effect.
       44. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з 1  of
   the Convention.
   
          2. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
   
       45.  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).
       46.  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).
       47.  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).
       48.  Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court  notes
   that  by  virtue  of  the judgment of 26 September  1994  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 20 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.
       49.  Accordingly, from the moment the judgment of 26  September
   1994  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.
       50. 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.
       51.  The  Court finds that the fact that it was impossible  for
   the  applicant  to  obtain the execution  of  the  judgment  of  26
   September  1994 for more than ten years constituted an interference
   with  his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, for which
   the  Government have not advanced any plausible justification  (see
   paragraph 41 above).
       52.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of  Article  1  of
   Protocol No. 1.
   
            II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
   
       53. 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
   
       54.  The  applicant  claimed  40,000  euros  (EUR)  by  way  of
   compensation  for non-pecuniary damage. He did not make  any  claim
   for pecuniary damage.
       55.  The Government considered that the claim was excessive and
   unsubstantiated.  They  believed that,  in  any  event,  the  award
   should not exceed the amount awarded by the Court in the Burdov  v.
   Russia  case. Alternatively, they submitted that the finding  of  a
   violation  constituted in itself sufficient just  satisfaction  for
   the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
       56. The Court notes that the State's outstanding obligation  to
   enforce  the  judgment  at  issue is undisputed.  Accordingly,  the
   applicant  is still entitled to recover the judgment  debt  in  the
   domestic   proceedings.  The  Court  reiterates   that   the   most
   appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article  6
   is  to  ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in  the
   position  in  which  he  would have been had  the  requirements  of
   Article  6  not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium  (Article
   50),  judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A No. 85, p.  16,  з  12;
   and,  mutatis mutandis, {Gencel} v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, з 27,  23
   October  2003).  The  Court finds that in  the  present  case  this
   principle  applies as well, having regard to the  violation  found.
   It  therefore  considers  that  the Government  should  secure,  by
   appropriate  means,  the  enforcement of  the  award  made  by  the
   domestic courts.
       57.  Furthermore, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered
   distress,   anxiety   and  frustration   because   of   the   State
   authorities'  failure  to  enforce a judgment  in  his  favour.  It
   further  observes  that, in contrast to the  aforementioned  Burdov
   case,  the  judgment in question has not yet been enforced  and  no
   effective  measures appear to have been taken in  order  to  comply
   with it. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards  Mr
   Teterin EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any  tax
   that may be chargeable on that amount.
   
                         B. Costs and expenses
   
       58.  The  applicant  did  not make any  claims  for  costs  and
   expenses incurred before the domestic courts or the Court.
       59.  Accordingly, the Court does not award anything under  this
   head.
   
                          C. Default interest
   
       60.  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.  Declares the complaints concerning the continued failure to
   enforce a final judgment in Mr Teterin's favour admissible and  the
   remainder of the application inadmissible;
       2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з  1  of
   the Convention;
       3.  Holds  that  there has been a violation  of  Article  1  of
   Protocol No. 1;
       4. Holds
       (a)  that  the respondent State, within three months  from  the
   date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44  з
   2  of  the  Convention,  is to secure, by  appropriate  means,  the
   enforcement  of  the  award made by the  domestic  court,  and,  in
   addition,  to  pay Mr Teterin EUR 3,000 (three thousand  euros)  in
   respect  of  non-pecuniary  damage, to be  converted  into  Russian
   roubles 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 applicants' claim  for  just
   satisfaction.
   
       Done  in  English,  and notified in writing on  30  June  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