THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KURUSHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 19388/07 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kurushina and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2017,
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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
6. The applicants complained 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.”
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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, as indicated in the appended table below.
11. 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.
12. 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).
13. 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.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. The applicants in the present cases did not submit claims for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account.
16. At the same time, the Court notes from the Government’s submissions that the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour have remained unenforced to date (see the appended table). The State’s obligation to enforce those judgments is not in dispute. The Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the judgment in the applicants’ favour (see Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03 and 3 others, § 68, 21 June 2007, and Salikova v. Russia, no. 25270/06, § 83, 15 July 2010).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, as indicated in the appended table, admissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
4. Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
5. 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the 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
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of
non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order
19388/07
01/03/2007
Lyudmila Viktorovna Kurushina
03/08/1968
Dubrovskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region, 04/11/2003
04/11/2003
pending
More than 13 year(s) and 9 month(s) and
25 day(s)
..."to oblige the commander of military unit 52678 of Moscow... to issue [the applicant] with a State housing certificate for provision of her family with housing at a place of residence of her choice according to the norms set out in [relevant laws]"...
46656/09
14/08/2009
Dmitriy Iosifovich Kapuza
10/01/1964
Novorossiysk Garrison Military Court, 08/05/2009
19/05/2009
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 10 day(s)
"... the Commander of the Black Sea Navy to provide [the applicant] ... with an apartment ..."
47394/10
18/06/2010
Tatyana Aleksandrovna Kuzmina
20/12/1950
Vuktyl Town Court of the Republic of Komi, 30/04/2009
Vuktyl Town Court of the Republic of Komi, 06/05/2010
10/05/2009
16/05/2010
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 19 day(s)
pending
More than 7 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s)
"... [the Administration of the Municipal District] to clean and repair the four cesspools for collecting liquid waste, located near [the applicant]’s apartment ..."
"... [the Administration of the Municipal District] to perform a complete overhaul of [the applicant]’s apartment ..."
59298/11
01/08/2011
Anna Iosifovna Denkovich
07/04/1962
Olga Iosifovna Denkovich
22/07/1960
Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk, 04/06/2010
21/07/2010
pending
More than 7 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s)
"... the Administration of Khabarovsk to provide [the applicants] with housing ..."
64943/11
22/09/2011
Aleksey Pavlovich Gorev
03/05/1972
Tambov Garrison Military Court, 01/03/2011
28/04/2011
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 1 day(s)
"... [the military unit no. 24815] to provide the applicant with all clothing and equipment allowance, 52 objects in total ..."
44953/12
24/05/2012
Zinaida Ivanovna Yevsina
20/06/1953
Sokolskiy District Court of the Vologda Region, 17/03/2011
20/04/2011
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 9 day(s)
"... the Administration of the town of Sokol to provide [the applicant] with housing ..."
72964/12
27/10/2012
Sergey Fedorovich Semikin
13/04/1971
Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, 19/06/2008
18/05/2009
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)
"... the Yakutsk Town District Administration to provide [the applicant] with housing ..."
40790/14
12/05/2014
Tatyana Yuryevna Mitina
23/04/1977
Kondopoga Town Court of the Republic of Karelia, 03/10/2013
25/01/2013
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 4 day(s)
"... the Administration of Kondopoga to carry out reparation works in the [applicant’s] block of flats, in particular of the roof, isolation, water supply, and sewerage system, by 01/07/2013 ..."
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy