FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43443/04
Gennadiy Aleksandrovich CHERVYAKOV against Russia
and 17 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 March 2015 as a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle Berro, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Ksenija Turković,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended list,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants are eighteen Russian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the appendix.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applications were communicated to the Government in the part concerning the delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and the absence of effective domestic remedies against the prolonged non-enforcement.
4. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Facts common for all cases
5. The applicants are active military servicemen approaching the end of their career or members of the family of military servicemen.
6. They obtained final court judgments in their favour imposing obligations to provide them with housing. The defendants in all cases were public authorities (in the most cases military units or the Ministry of Defence). In some cases the courts awarded the applicants additional benefits, such as monetary awards or obligations in kind. The judgments became binding and enforceable. The details of the relevant domestic awards and the dates of their entry into force are summarised in the appendix. Their enforcement was delayed for a considerable period of time.
7. According to the Government, all judgments were enforced on the dates listed in the appendix.
B. Specific facts concerning modalities of enforcement in separate cases
8. The applicant in the case no. 4527/09 complained in court against the Bailiff Service’s decision of 25 July 2007 to close the enforcement proceedings. The Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated on 22 January 2008. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court on 19 June 2008.
9. In case no. 18948/09 by a decision of 15 January 2007 of a local Housing Commission a three-room apartment in an apartment block at a specific address was allocated to the applicant. It appears that the applicant has resided in the apartment since February 2007. On 20 July 2008 the authorities concluded a social tenancy agreement with the applicant in respect of the apartment (see the relevant part of the appendix). On 17 April 2009 a formal authorisation to inhabit the apartment block was issued, and on 2 November 2009 the respondent authority’s right of operative management in respect of the apartment block was registered. The applicant claimed that the apartment did not meet sanitary requirements and brought civil proceedings against the authorities to have the apartment renovated. On 15 November 2010 the Vyborg Town Court dismissed his claims as unsubstantiated. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the final judgment of the Leningrad Regional Court on 16 December 2010.
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
11. The applicants in the cases nos. 32208/08, 4527/09, 41103/09, 43315/09 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of effective domestic remedies against the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
12. Some applicants made accessory complaints under a number of Articles of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
13. Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
B. Complaints concerning non-enforcement of the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour
1. The Government’s unilateral remedial offers and the applicants’ objections
14. The Government submitted to the Court that the domestic judgments had been enforced in full on various dates specified in the appendix. They submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums listed in the appendix in respect of non-pecuniary and, where appropriate, pecuniary damage. Their proposals are summarised in the appendix below. The remainder of the declarations read as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The [sums tabulated below], which [are] to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. [They] will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay [these sums] within the said three‑month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on [them] from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
15. The applicants were invited to comment on the Government’s unilateral declarations, if they so wished. Some of the applicants did not submit any comments. Others disputed the real dates of enforcement and/or argued that the authorities had failed to observe proper modalities of enforcement of the judgments in their favour (see for details of their respective arguments paragraphs 21-23 and 24-29 below). Some of the applicants claimed that they were entitled to a further compensation of pecuniary damage (see paragraphs 32-35 below). Finally, some of them were dissatisfied with the amounts proposed in respect of non-pecuniary damage and submitted their own calculations to that effect.
2. The Court’s assessment of the Government’s remedial offers
16. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.”
17. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the cases to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003‑VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
(a) Existence of clear and extensive case-law on the matter
18. The Court notes that it has developed extensive case-law regarding prolonged non-enforcement of judgments imposing in-kind obligations upon the Russian authorities (see, e.g., Kravchenko and Others (military housing) v. Russia, nos. 11609/05 et al., 16 September 2010; Kalinkin and Others v. Russia, nos. 16967/10 et al., 17 April 2012; Ilyushkin and Others v. Russia, nos. 5734/08 et al., 17 April 2012; and, as a recent authority, pilot judgment Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 et al., 1 July 2014).
(b) Nature of the Government’s admissions and adequacy of the proposed redress
19. The Court notes that the declarations submitted by the Government in the present case were no doubt intended to resolve the issues raised by the applications concerned. The Court is satisfied that they acknowledged, at least in substance, the violation of the applicants’ Convention rights as a result of the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
20. The Court further notes that the applicants raised a number of objections related both to the accuracy of the information submitted by the Government and the adequacy of the proposed compensation, and it will now examine these groups of objections in turn.
(i) The applicants’ objections pertaining to the actual dates of enforcement of the judgments in their favour
21. Some applicants accepted that the judgments in their favour had been enforced but disputed the real dates of enforcement of the respective judicial awards. The Court reiterates that it has usually considered the date of the conclusion of a social tenancy agreement as the date of the provision of the housing (see Kravchenko and Others, cited above, § 30). Turning to the present cases, the Court does not find anything either in the domestic courts’ findings or in the applicants’ specific submissions to depart from that position. For instance, in the case no. 18948/09 the applicant claimed that the judgment in his favour had been enforced on 17 April 2009 when the authorities had issued a permission to inhabit the apartment block (see paragraph 9 above). However, it transpires from the applicant’s submissions both to the domestic authorities and to this Court that he has actually lived in the apartment since early 2007 (ibid). In these circumstances, while accepting that the date of the formal social tenancy agreement confirming the applicant’s right to the apartment, concluded with him more than a year later – on 20 July 2008 – should be taken into account as the date of enforcement, the Court rejects the subsequent arguments concerning either the date of the formal ex post facto permission to inhabit the building or the date of the registration of the respondent authority’s title to the apartment block as irrelevant. Similarly, in case no. 7922/09, where the applicant maintained that the judgment had been enforced on the date of the apartment’s privatisation (22 July 2011), the Court is unable to accept such an argument, since the domestic judgment obliged the authorities to provide the applicant with an apartment under a social tenancy agreement, but did not in any way concern an apartment’s eventual privatisation.
22. In the case no. 42108/09 the applicant argued that the judgment had been enforced when he had been dismissed from military service (on 25 March 2011 and not in November 2010, as suggested by the Government). The Court notes from the submitted documents that, in fact, the applicant was provided with an apartment on 10 November 2010 and then dismissed from the military service on 23 March 2011, that is four months later than specified in the Government’s declaration. Thus, it clearly transpires from the applicant’s submissions to the domestic authorities and the Court that the crux of his grievance was the failure to grant him an apartment which, in turn, constituted an impediment for the dismissal, conditional on the provision of housing. It was precisely the date of the allocation of the apartment which the Government cited in their unilateral declaration. In these circumstances, the Court is not prepared to reject the declaration on that ground only, provided that the remedial offer made by the Government was adequate (see, for the Court’s assessment, paragraphs 30-31, 36 below).
23. Finally, the applicant in the case no. 4532/09 also expressed his disagreement with the factual information provided by the Government in the unilateral declarations. However, his submissions are not supported by any explanations or evidence, and the Court accordingly rejects them as unfounded.
(ii) Objections as regards the enforcement status of the domestic judgments and the modalities of enforcement
24. Some of the applicants contested the fact of full enforcement of the domestic judgments. The Court reiterates its constant approach that domestic courts are better placed to ascertain the proper method of enforcement and to decide the issue of whether and when full and appropriate compliance with a judgment has been secured. In accordance with its established case-law, the Court requires that any dispute in that respect be first and foremost examined by domestic courts (e.g., the parties’ lawsuits against the bailiffs’ decision to pursue or to close the enforcement proceedings). The Court may only depart from this principle and accept an argument about the improper enforcement of a judgment in the event of flagrant inconsistency between the judgment requirements and the defendant authority’s acts. (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 173 and the case-law cited therein). The Court considers that none of the objections made by the applicants reveal such inconsistency, for the following reasons.
25. The applicants in the cases nos. 43443/04 and 4527/09 claimed that the apartments had been provided to them, with no regard being had to the number of their family members. The Court notes, however, that in accordance with the domestic judgment in the applicant’s favour in the case no. 43443/04 the applicant himself was the only beneficiary of the lawsuit. In the case no. 4527/09, the applicant brought that grievance to the attention of the domestic court in the proceedings against bailiffs, but his respective complaint was rejected as unsubstantiated (see paragraph 8 above) The Court does not see a reason to depart from the domestic court’s findings and rejects the objection. Similarly, the applicant in the case no. 18948/09 submitted that the apartment provided did not meet the relevant sanitary standards. The Court observes that the applicant’s lawsuit against the authorities to have the apartment renovated was dismissed (see paragraph 9 above). The Court does not see a reason to depart from the domestic court’s findings and rejects the respective objection, lending credence to the Government’s account.
26. The applicant in the case no. 50340/07 submitted that an apartment had been provided at a town different from the one that the applicant had chosen. The Court observes that, in fact, he had agreed to the town offered by the authorities and signed all the relevant documents. It is accordingly satisfied that the judgment was enforced as submitted by the Government.
27. The applicants in the cases nos. 32208/08 and 36990/08 maintained that the judgments awarding benefits other than housing had not been enforced in a manner expected by them. The Court reiterates in this respect that domestic authorities are better placed to assess the calculation of the applicant’s benefits, including the types and amounts of the allowances he was entitled to (see, mutatis mutandis, Sirotin v. Russia (dec.), no. 38712/03, 14 September 2006). The Court notes that the applicants failed to raise the issue of the manner of enforcement of the judgments in their favour before domestic authorities. For instance, they could have requested clarifications of the initial judgments (see, e.g., Bogatyrev v. Russia (dec.), no. 22960/04, 27 August 2009). In the absence of such clarification, the Court lends credence to the Government’s submissions (see, mutatis mutandis, Sirotin, cited above; and Tikhov and Others v. Russia, no. 14296/03, § 25, 27 March 2008) and concludes that the judgments in question were fully enforced.
28. The applicants in the cases nos. 43443/04, 32208/08, 7922/09, 41103/09, 42108/09 claimed that the apartments had been provided after the applicants’ dismissal from military service, and not before, as stipulated by the judgments in their favour. The Court observes that the applicants did not raise that issue before domestic authorities. Therefore, it lends credence to the Government’s submissions (see, mutatis mutandis, Sirotin, cited above; and Tikhov and Others, cited above) and concludes that the judgments in question were properly enforced.
29. Lastly, the applicants in the cases nos. 30003/09 and 39826/09 argued that the authorities refused to register the applicants’ domicile in the apartments provided and/or refused to allow their privatisation. The Court rejects these allegations as not supported by any evidence.
(iii) Adequacy of the compensation offers
30. The Court further reiterates that the adequacy of the offers of compensation should also be assessed with due regard to what was at stake in each particular application and to the amounts of just satisfaction the Court has awarded under the Convention in similar circumstances (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 132, and Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 154, ECHR 2009).
31. First, the Court is satisfied that the sums offered by the Government in compensation of non-pecuniary damage for all the applicants are directly proportionate to the delays in enforcement of the judgments and are also in line with the Court’s case-law (see. e.g., Kravchenko and Others, cited above; Kalinkin and Others, cited above; and Ilyushkin and Others, cited above).
32. Second, as regards the claims of the compensation of pecuniary damage allegedly not covered by the unilateral declarations, the Court notes that in two cases the applicants claimed the amount of inflation losses as applied to a) the cost of salary that would have been paid to the applicant had he not been dismissed from military service until the provision of an apartment (case no. 7922/09), and b) the cost of an apartment that the applicant was not provided with in due time (case no. 56159/09). The Court observes that it was open to the applicants to claim the cost of the related inflation losses in the domestic courts (see Popov and Others v. Russia (dec.) 45293/05, 28 May 2013), and they did not provide any information of having done so.
33. The applicants in two cases (nos. 32208/08 and 7922/09) claimed the cost of privatisation services. In view of the fact that the apartments in question were to be provided to the applicants under the social tenancy contracts, their future privatisation being only a possibility, the Court does not accept that there is a causal link between that cost and the alleged violations of the Convention.
34. The applicants in the cases nos. 36990/08 and 21875/10 claimed the cost of the housing rent during the whole period of non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour. However, the applicants did not substantiate their claims with any evidence.
35. Lastly, the applicants in several cases (nos. 7922/09, 30003/09, and 21875/10) claimed the costs and/or expenses incurred at the domestic proceedings and/or the proceedings before the Court. The Court notes that the relevant sums claimed either are not supported by any evidence or do not make the Government’s proposal inconsistent with the sums which would be awarded by the Court in similar cases.
36. The Court is therefore satisfied that the remedial offers made by the Government are adequate from the standpoint of the Convention and consistent with its own case-law on the matter (cited in paragraph 18 above).
(c) Conclusion
37. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases, – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
38. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic (see paragraph 18 above), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
39. The Court accordingly decides that applications should be struck out of its list of cases in so far as they concern the complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
40. The Court considers that the proposed amounts should be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amounts in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
41. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
C. The complaint under Article 13 of the Convention
42. The Court further notes that some applicants (see paragraph 11 above) complained about the absence of an effective remedy in respect of their non-enforcement complaints. The Government did not specify their position in this respect, and the applicants did not raise any objections to that effect. While a failure to acknowledge a particular violation may be an element preventing an application being struck out of the Court’s list (see §§ 133-139 of Gerasimov and Others, cited above, Missenjov v. Estonia, no. 43276/06, §§ 25-26, 29 January 2009; Untermayer v. Slovakia, no. 6846/08, §§ 45-46, 9 July 2013; Kiisa v. Estonia, nos. 16587/10 and 34304/11, §§ 46-47, 13 March 2014), the Court does not find such an obstacle in the present case for the following reasons.
43. The Court reiterates that it has recently addressed a question of principle as to the existence of a systemic problem arising from the lack of domestic remedies in respect of the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgments imposing obligations in kind in the pilot judgment Gerasimov and Others (cited above). In the pilot judgment the Court upheld its earlier conclusion that there was no effective domestic remedy in Russia in respect of delayed enforcement of domestic judgments delivered against State authorities in all obligation in kind cases (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 165) and ordered the respondent State to set up, in cooperation with the Committee of Ministers within one year from the date on which the judgment became final, an effective domestic remedy or combination of such remedies which secures adequate and sufficient redress for non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations in kind on the State’s authorities in line with the Convention principles as established in the Court’s case-law (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§ 223-26 and point 12 of the operative part). The Gerasimov judgment became final on 1 October 2014 without being referred to the Grand Chamber by any of the parties and is now subject to be executed by the respondent State under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers within the time-limit set by the Court.
44. In those circumstances, there is nothing to be gained from a separate examination of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 at this time (see, mutatis mutandis, McLean and Cole v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 12626/13 and 2522/12, 11 June 2013, §§ 36-37). Nor have the applicants insisted on such a separate examination in their comments to the Government’s unilateral declarations (see paragraph 15 above). Consequently, the Court does not consider it necessary to pursue examination of that issue at this stage. The present decision is obviously without prejudice to the Court’s subsequent review of the effectiveness of a new domestic remedy which is expected to be introduced in accordance with the pilot judgment. Meanwhile, the Court will examine the unilateral declarations in the present cases in the light of the pilot judgment’s requirement to grant adequate and sufficient redress to those applicants whose applications have been communicated to the Government (see, mutatis mutandis, Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§ 230-31 and point 13 of the operative part). Although the present declarations had been submitted before the adoption of the pilot judgment, the Court is satisfied that both the nature of the Government’s admissions and the adequacy of the remedial offers are compatible with the requirements of the pilot judgment, being in line with the Court’s consistent case-law (see paragraphs 30-31 and 36 above). The Court therefore concludes that the applications must be struck out of its list of cases.
D. Other complaints made by the applicants
45. As for the applicants’ accessory complaints referring to other Articles of the Convention, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
46. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they concern the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaint of lack of an effective remedy;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 26 March 2015.
André WampachIsabelle Berro
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No
Application number,
date of lodging
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Name of the court
Date of the judgment
Nature of
the award
Judgment
became final on
Enforcement status,
delay in enforcement
Unilateral remedial offer
43443/04
16/11/2004
Gennadiy Aleksandrovich CHERVYAKOV
08/05/1960
Novomoskovsk
Military Court of the Vladimir Garrison
15/01/2002
(as explained by that court’s ruling of 29/05/2003)
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment before his dismissal from military service ...”
26/02/2002
Enforced on 03/03/2008
6 years
EUR 5,900
7749/06
27/01/2006
Andrey Valeryevich RAZUMOV
06/05/1967
Moscow
Khamovnitcheski District Court
(the Moscow Region)
26/09/2002
modified on 07/12/2004
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment ...”
10/02/2003
Enforced on 28/07/2008
3 years 7 months
EUR 3,570
50340/07
27/04/2006
Aleksandr Anatolyevich LISNEVSKIY
08/04/1960
Krasnoznamensk
Military Court of the Garrison No. 26 (Baikonur)
05/10/2006
“... provide [the applicant and his family] with an apartment at a place to be chosen by [him] ...”
20/10/2006
Enforced on 10/12/2008
2 years 1 month
EUR 2,100
32208/08
14/05/2008
Arsen Sergeyevich GEVORKYAN
31/01/1962
Saint-Petersburg
Military Court of the Garrison No. 5
(Yerevan)
1)
03/04/2007
2)
21/06/2007
3)
15/08/2007
1)
«... to annul an order of the Commander of a military unit ... imposing a disciplinary sanction in the form of a warning on [the applicant] ...”
2)
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment at a place to be chosen by [him] ...”
3)
“... pay to [the applicant] the salary due from April till July 2007 ...“
1)
16/04/2007
2)
06/07/2007
3)
27/08/2007
1)
Enforced on 15/05/2007
2)
Enforced on 05/11/2009
2 years 4 months
3)
Enforced in February 2008
EUR 2,290
36990/08
05/06/2008
Gennadiy Nikolayevich GOLOVTSOV
21/08/1968
Rostov-na-Donu
1)
Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison
24/03/2005
2)
Military Court of the Rostov-na-Donu Garrison
14/06/2007
1)
“... pay to [the applicant] the salary due from 1 October till 29 December 2004 ...“
2)
“... to rent for [the applicant and his family] an apartment ...”
1)
04/04/2005
2)
25/07/2007
1)
Enforced on 27/05/2007
2)
Enforced on 27/08/2010
Total delay: 5 years 3 months
EUR 5,290
61475/08
21/11/2008
Vyacheslav Vladimirovich ZUYEV
02/01/1973
St Petersburg
Military Court of the Saint-Petersburg Garrison
16/08/2007
“... provide [the applicant and his family] with an apartment ...”
01/09/2007
Enforced on 21/09/2010
3 years
EUR 3,000
4527/09
01/12/2008
Aleksey Alekseyevich KASATKIN
24/08/1955
Moscow
Military Court of the Moscow Garrison
18/12/2003
“... provide [the applicant and his family] with an apartment before his dismissal from military service ...”
30/12/2003
Enforced on 25/07/2007
3 years 6 months
EUR 3,500
4532/09
14/11/2008
Aleksandr Vasilyevich POPKOV
01/05/1976
Tolyatti
Military Court of the Sochi Garrison
1)
15/05/2007 (nº 28)
2)
15/05/2007 (nº 29)
1)
“ ... to rent for [the applicant and his family] an apartment ...”
2)
“... provide [the applicant and his family] with an apartment ...”
1)
01/06/2007
2)
01/06/2007
1)
Enforced on
20/11/2010
3 years 4 months
2)
Enforced on
20/11/2010
3 years 4 months
EUR 3,400
7922/09
11/01/2009
Rafael Vazikhovich GANIYEV
01/02/1979
St. Petersburg
Military Court of the Saint-Petersburg Garrison
17/05/2007
“... provide [the applicant and his family] with an apartment before his dismissal from military service ...”
02/06/2007
Enforced on 21/09/2010
3 years 3 months
EUR 3,240
18948/09
08/10/2008
Viktor Ivanovich BOGOMOLOV
20/04/1964
Vyborg
Military Court of the Vyborg Garrison
14/04/2004
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment ... before his dismissal from military service ...”
27/04/2004
Enforced on 20/07/2008
4 years 2 months
EUR 4,150
30003/09
04/05/2009
Sergey Vasilyevich IVANOV
18/11/1957
Moscow
Military Court of the Moscow Garrison
20/11/2007
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment ... before his dismissal from military service ...”
13/03/2008
Enforced on 23/07/2010
2 years 3 months
EUR 2,310
39826/09
21/04/2009
Nikolay Viktorovich GORELOV
28/07/1964
St. Petersburg
Military Court of the Saint-Petersburg Garrison
05/09/2007
“... provide [the applicant and his family] with an apartment ...”
18/10/2007
Enforced on 22/09/2010
2 years 11 months
EUR 2,870
41103/09
08/07/2009
Sergey Mikhaylovich PRAVDYUKOV
04/11/1961
Moscow
Military Court of the Moscow Garrison
18/05/2006
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment ... before his dismissal from military service ...”
06/06/2006
Enforced on 24/06/2010
4 years
EUR 3,970
(non-pecuniary damage)
RUB 1,022.4
(costs and expenses)
42108/09
19/07/2009
Nikolay Yevgenyevich GEYTS
22/01/1962
Kaliningrad
Military Court of the Kaliningrad Garrison
22/01/2009
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment ... [and then] dismiss [him] from military service ...”
02/02/2009
Apartment provided on 10/11/2010 (according to the Government)
1 year 8 months;
Dismissal from the military service on 23 March 2011
EUR 1,730
43315/09
10/07/2009
Tamerlan Aleksandrovich PLIYEV
17/05/1964
Moscow
Military Court of the Moscow Garrison
09/11/2006
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment ... before his dismissal from military service ...”
21/11/2006
Enforced on 18/02/2010
3 years 2 months
EUR 3,180
(non-pecuniary damage)
RUB 527,3
(costs and expenses)
56159/09
22/09/2009
Sergey Yuryevich CHERDANTSEV
20/02/1960
Korenovsk
Military Court of the Krasnodar Garrison
18/03/2008
“... provide [the applicant and his family] with an apartment ...”
09/04/2008
Enforced on 25/01/2011
2 years 9 months
EUR 2,740
6973/10
19/01/2010
Sergey Anatolyevich PERVOV
16/05/1951
Sertolovo
Vsevolozhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region
21/11/2007
“... provide [the applicant and a member of his family] with an apartment ...”
13/12/2007
Enforced on 11/05/2010
2 years 4 months
EUR 2,360
21875/10
23/03/2010
Tatyana Nikolayevna KORYAGINA
20/05/1956
Orenburg
Orenburgskiy Garrison Military Court
31/07/2001
“... provide [the applicant] with an apartment ...”
10/08/2001
Enforced on 23/05/2011
9 years 9 months
EUR 6,500
(non-pecuniary damage)
RUB 15,000
(costs and expenses)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy