FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33382/04
by Rudolf Viktorovich FEDOROV AND OTHERS
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
17 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoli Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Rudolf Viktorovich Fedorov, Mrs Sofiya Mikhaylovna Fedorova, Mrs Lyudmila Dmitriyevna Fedorova and
Mr Andrey Rudolfovich Fedorov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1947, 1949, 1927 and 1983 respectively and live in Izhevsk, the Republic of Udmurtia.
The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 October 1986 one of the applicants, Mr R. Fedorov, was called up by the military authorities to take part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The applicant was engaged in the operations until 30 December 1986 and, as a result, suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In 1997, after an expert opinion established a causal link between the applicant’s disability and his involvement in the Chernobyl events, Mr R. Fedorov was put on a waiting list for additional housing. As he was not offered any, in 2004 he brought court proceedings against the Ministry of Finance, Russian Government and the Ministry of Construction and Architecture.
On 5 April 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk partly found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the Ministry of Construction and Architecture to grant the applicant additional housing in a form of a separate room. Both parties appealed against the judgment (the applicant requested to be provided with a separate flat instead of a room).
On 8 June 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtia upheld the judgment and on the same day it became enforceable.
On 28 June 2004 the Bailiff’s Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
On 5 August 2004 Mr R. Fedorov’s representative in the domestic proceedings, Mr G., applied to the Bailiff’s Service in order to withdraw the writ of execution.
On 6 August 2004 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant’s representative and the enforcement proceedings were terminated due to the applicant’s withdrawal of the writ.
Subsequently, the applicant applied to the court requesting it to amend the way of the execution of the judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk of 5 April 2004.
On 22 September 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk changed the way of execution of the judgment of 5 April 2004 and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 281 099, 70 Russian roubles (RUB) for the purchase of additional housing in a form of a separate room with a living surface of 18 m².
On 21 October 2004 the applicant sent the new writ of execution to the Bailiff’s Service.
On 20 April 2005 the applicant’s wife, on his behalf, concluded a sale-purchase agreement of a separate room with a living surface of 18m².
On 26 April 2005 the agreement was registered by the Property Department of the Federal Registration Service of the Republic of Udmurtia in accordance with the official procedure and the applicant received an ownership certificate for the room.
On 27 April 2005 the sum awarded to the applicant for the purchase of the housing was transferred to the seller’s account.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants, Mr. R. Fedorov and his three family members, complained under Articles 3, 4, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention that the judgment of 5 April 2004 remained unexecuted; that they suffered from living all together in a small apartment and that civil servants ignored their complaints and treated them in a discriminative manner.
THE LAW
1. The applicants’ main concern relates to the allegedly non-execution of the judgment of 5 April 2004. In this respect the Court finds that only one of the applicants, Mr R. Fedorov may be considered to be a victim of the alleged violations. The complaints about the non-enforcement in respect of Mrs S. Fedorova, Mrs L. Fedorova and Mr A. Fedorov are incompatible ratione personae since the judgment did not concern them and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
As regards Mr R. Fedorov’s complaint concerning the non-execution of the final judgment of 5 April 2004, the court will examine this complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:
Article 6 of the Convention
“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
“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 ... .”
The Government submitted that the judgment referred to by the applicant had been enforced in full, that the delay in enforcement had not been excessive and that the application should therefore be declared manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.
The applicant maintained his complaints.
The Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the court judgment of 5 April 2004 was executed in full. It further recalls that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III and Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, § 37, 23 October 2003). In the present case the overall period during which the court award in question remained without enforcement was 10 months, 18 days.
The Court also notes, however, that on 5 August 2004, i.e. about two months after the judgment became enforceable, the applicant withdrew the writ of execution and the enforcement proceedings were terminated. After the court had granted the applicant’s request to change the way of the execution of the judgment, a new writ of execution was issued in September 2004 and the enforcement proceedings were reopened.
Consequently, during two months the enforcement proceedings had been suspended due to the applicant’s request to amend the way of execution of the judgment and this period of non-enforcement is not attributable to the State. In any event, even if calculating the overall length of non-enforcement by including these two months in question, the period of 10 months and 18 days does not appear excessive (see Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004 and Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005, Inozemtsev v Russia (dec.), no. 874/03, 31 August 2006).
It follows that Mr R. Fedorov’s complaint in respect of the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 5 April 2004 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicants also complained under Articles 3, 4, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention that they had suffered from living all together in a small apartment and that civil servants ignored their complaints and treated them in a discriminative manner.
Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence ratione materiae, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy