THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KHAKIMOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 7521/05 and 7 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 April 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Khakimovy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 March 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. In some applications the Government submitted unilateral declarations which did not offer 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 cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
7. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“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.”
8. 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).
9. In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, no. 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.
10. Having regard to the nature of the judicial awards in the applicants’ favour (see the appended table for details of court orders), the Court considers that the applicants had, by virtue of these judgments, a “legitimate expectation” to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
11. 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 these complaints. 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 decisions in the applicants’ favour.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
13. The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non‑enforcement. The Court has already noted the existence of a new domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced in the wake of the pilot judgment, which enables those concerned to seek compensation for damage sustained as a result of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 35555/05 and 6 others, 2 May 2017). Even though the remedy was – or still is – available to the applicants, the Court reiterates that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court, to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 230).
14. However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, no. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011). This ruling is without prejudice to the Court’s future assessment of the new remedy.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
15. In applications nos. 7521/05 and 12626/10, the applicants also raised other complaints under the same Articles of the Convention.
16. The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. 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.”
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 187-200, 1 July 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It rejects any further claims for just satisfaction submitted by the applicants.
19. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.
20. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Rejects the Government’s request to strike some applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions as set out in the appended table admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 7521/05 and 12626/10 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;
5. Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
6. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
8. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household
(in euros)[1]
7521/05
03/02/2005
(4 applicants)
Household
Rustem Rayshitovich Khakimov
17/03/1962
Renat Rustemovich Khakimov
30/08/1983
Raylya Ramilevna Khakimova
08/02/1959
Rimma Rustemovna Khakimova
04/11/1987
Gumerov Lenar Askhatovich
Kazan
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan,
24/09/2002
03/10/2002
21/11/2007
5 year(s) and
1 month(s) and 19 day(s)
"[the Council] should provide [the applicant’s] with a flat"
6,000
30342/06
31/05/2006
Faina Petrovna Shuvayeva
13/11/1958
Syktyvkar Town Court,
15/12/2004
25/01/2005
31/10/2008
3 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 7 day(s)
"... to provide the applicant with a flat of not less than 18 sq. m. within the limits of Syktyvkar"
3,500
3.
12626/10
16/02/2010
Vladimir Nikolayevich Shevarev
15/02/1955
Commercial Court of the Primorye Region,
31/05/2006
23/01/2007
15/09/2009
2 year(s) and
7 month(s) and 24 day(s)
“Ministry of Defence to restore the heating supply to [the applicant’s business premises] within a month from the judgment becoming final and continue the supply of heating according to the established norms”
2,500
4.
16330/10
18/02/2010
Tatyana Mikhaylovna Yakovleva
30/01/1953
Bazarnosyzganskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region, 03/02/2009
17/03/2009
27/12/2010
1 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 11 day(s)
"... [local administration] to provide [the applicant’s flat] with [heat energy] ..."
1,500
5.
16332/10
18/02/2010
Yelena Anatolyevna Stepnova
28/07/1966
Bazarnosyzganskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk Region, 27/02/2009
07/04/2009
27/12/2010
1 year(s) and
8 month(s) and 21 day(s)
"... [local administration] to provide [the applicant’s apartment] with [heat energy] ..."
1,500
6.
62880/10
01/10/2010
(6 applicants)
Household
Natalya Yuryevna Zolikova
18/08/1969
Arseniy Konstantinovich Markin
15/12/2000
Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin
10/12/1976
Konstantin Konstantinovich Markin
30/09/2005
Timofey Konstantinovich Markin
15/02/1996
Natalya Konstantinovna Markina
05/08/2010
Military Court of the Velikonovgorodskiy Garrison, 05/02/2010
01/04/2010
17/10/2013
3 year(s) and
6 month(s) and 17 day(s)
to provide the applicant and his family with housing premises
pecuniary damage:
10,000
non-pecuniary damage:
3,500
7.
33655/11
07/05/2011
Valentina Mikhaylovna Goncharova
01/08/1948
Taganrog Town Court,
19/12/2007
19/06/2008
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)
"To ban the Committee from using a ‘certain’ building project; to order ... in accordance with relevant laws and regulation [...] a new project of renovation of the load bearing wall [...]; to oblige the Committee to carry out [such renovation] in accordance with this new project [...], to pay [the applicant] a total of 14,600 RUB..."
6,000
8.
782/12
05/02/2011
Nadezhda Petrovna Predushchenko
29/06/1941
Leninskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region, 06/11/2008
19/02/2009
28/02/2011
2 year(s) and 10 day(s)
“ordered Administration of Voronezh to conduct repair works in the house and to provide technical documentation for the house”
2,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy