10 April 2012
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 29920/05
Mikhail Yefimovich GERASIMOV against Russia
and 14 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are all Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. Their details appear below. The applicants acted pro se before the Court, except in three cases specified below where the applicants are represented by a lawyer. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, and their complaints may be summarised as follows.
I. GERASIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 29920/05)
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Yefimovich Gerasimov, was born on 30 June 1927 and lived in Vladivostok, the Primorskiy Region. On 28 March 2011 the applicant passed away. His widow, Ms Yelena E. Gerasimova, informed the Court of her wish to maintain the application in stead of her late husband.
A. The circumstances of the case
On 3 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok ordered the Vladivostok Administration to conclude with the applicant a utility services contract before 1 December 2002, and to repair the basement of his house in accordance with the sanitary regulations before the beginning of the heating season. On 14 September 2002 the judgment became final but has not been enforced to date.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 13 and, in substance, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the absence of effective domestic remedies in that respect. He also alleges a violation of the State’s positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention on account of the same facts.
II. SHMAKOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 3553/06)
The applicant, Mr Andrey Gennadyevich Shmakov was born on 30 October 1960 and lives in Yakutsk, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).
A. The circumstances of the case
On 10 January 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) ordered the Yakutsk Administration to provide the applicant and his family with appropriate housing in Yakutsk in accordance with the law instead of his former house demolished in 2001. On an unspecified date the judgment became final but its enforcement was delayed by the respondent authority.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 3 and, in substance, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non‑enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
III. RADIONOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 13934/06)
The applicant, Mr Viktor Georgiyevich Radionov, was born on 31 August 1955 and lives in Birobidzhan, the Yevreyskiy Autonomous Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
In June 2004 the applicant purchased a car. In April 2005 the authorities seized his car’s registration documents and plates since it appeared on the police vehicle search database. The applicant challenged the authorities’ actions in court. On 5 October 2005 the Court of Jewish Autonomous Region dismissed the applicant’s claim.
In 2009 the applicant sued the Directorate of Internal Affairs of the Jewish Autonomous Region seeking to restore the State’s registration of his car. On 28 September 2009 the Birobidzhan Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 20 November 2009 the Court of the Jewish Autonomous Region quashed that judgment on appeal and delivered a new one ordering the respondent authority to restore the State registration of the applicant’s car. The latter judgment became final but has not been enforced to date.
B. Complaints
(1) The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the seizure of his car’s registration documents and plates violated his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. (2) He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of the Court of the Jewish Autonomous Region of 20 November 2009 remained unenforced.
IV. FEDYASHOVA AND YEMELYANOVA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 15351/06)
The applicants, Ms Nina Petrovna Fedyashova and Ms Tatyana Vladimirovna Yemelyanova, were born on 16 February 1936 and 28 March 1963 respectively and live in Murom, the Vladimir Region. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Lebedev, a lawyer practicing in the Vladimir Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
On 14 November 2001 the Murom Town Court of the Vladimir Region ordered the Murom Administration to provide the applicants’ house with a sewerage system for removal of rain water. On an unspecified date this judgment became final. On 30 December 2002 the Murom Town Court granted the authorities’ request for stay on enforcement of the judgment until 1 October 2003. However, the judgment remained unenforced a long time after that date.
B. Complaints
The applicants complain under Article 13, and, in substance, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour and the absence of effective domestic remedies in that respect.
V. BARANOVA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 18876/10)
The applicant, Ms Lyubov Mikaylovna Baranova was born on 17 April 1960 and lives in the Ulyanovsk Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
On 14 April 2009 the Bazarnosyzganskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region ordered the local administration to provide heating supply to the applicant’s flat. On 26 May 2009 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court upheld this judgment on appeal. By a judgment of 16 July 2009 the Inzenskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region clarified possible ways of enforcement of the judgment of 14 April 2009.
On 26 March 2010 an individual gas heating device was installed in the applicant’s flat but she did not receive the relevant technical documentation. As a result, the enforcement proceedings were not terminated at that date.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about non‑enforcement of the judgment in her favour.
VI. KOSTYLEVA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 61186/10)
The applicant, Ms Tatyana Salikhzanovna Kostyleva, was born on 13 September 1960 and lives in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic. She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Mezak.
A. The circumstances of the case
On 2 October 2000 the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic ordered the Syktyvkar Administration to renovate the house in which the applicant occupied a flat as a social tenant. On 10 November 2000 this judgment became final.
On 20 July 2009 the Syktyvkar Town Court found that the applicant was still living in unsuitable conditions and ordered the Syktyvkar Administration to provide her and her family with comfortable social housing of at least 40,8 m² in Syktyvkar. That judgment became final on 5 August 2009 but was not enforced. On 10 February 2010 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed the authorities’ request for stay on enforcement of the judgment of 20 July 2009, considering that it would put the applicant’s and her family’s life and health in danger.
In June 2010 the applicant brought an action under the Federal Law, no. 68-ФЗ of 30 April 2010, “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (hereinafter referred to as “the Compensation Act”), claiming compensation for non-enforcement of the above judgments in her favour. On 30 July 2010 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic declared the applicant’s action inadmissible. The court observed that the judgments at issue imposed obligations in kind, while the Compensation Act was only applicable to delayed enforcement of judgments establishing a debt to be recovered from the State budgets. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28 September 2010. The judgments in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 about non-enforcement of the judgments of the Syktyvkar Town Court of 2 October 2000 and 20 July 2009. Invoking Articles 13 and 14, she also complained that the dismissal of her action under the Compensation Act was discriminatory in nature as compensation could only be granted for non-enforcement of judicial monetary awards.
VII. STAROSTENKOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 21176/11)
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Vasilyevich Starostenkov, was born on 8 June 1954 and lives in Smolensk.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant is a retired police officer suffering from injuries received during his service. He has been declared as a disable person of second degree since 1993.
On 3 July 2008 the Velizhskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region upheld the applicant’s right to be provided with a car as a technical means of his rehabilitation and ordered the Department of Social Development of the Smolensk Region to ensure implementation of the applicant’s right. This judgment became final on 18 July 2008. On 2 September 2008 the court specified possible ways of enforcement of the judgment of 3 July 2008. However, the judgment remained unenforced.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 6 and, in substance, under Article 13 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the absence of effective domestic remedies in this respect.
VIII. ZAKHARCHENKO v. RUSSIA (Application no. 36112/11)
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Arturovich Zakharchenko, was born on 4 September 1966 and lives in Saint Petersburg.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant is a military serviceman. On 30 November 2006 the Pushkin Garnison Military Court ordered the Commandant of the military unit no. 3526 to provide the applicant and his family by priority with a social housing in accordance with the law in force at the material time and located in the geographic area of his military service. This judgment became final on 16 December 2006 but was not enforced.
In September 2010 the applicant brought an action under the Compensation Act claiming compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 6 October 2010 the Leningrad Circuit Military Court declared his action inadmissible. The court observed that the judgment concerned an imposed obligation in kind and thus found the Compensation Act inapplicable. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 2 December 2010. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Compensation Act concerned only monetary obligations. The judgment of 30 November 2006 in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the lack of effective domestic remedies in this respect.
IX. TROSHINA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 36426/11)
The applicant, Ms Marina Yevgenyevna Troshina, was born on 14 July 1961 and lives in Moscow.
A. The circumstances of the case
On 13 April 2007 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the Moscow Regional Department of the Federal Agency of the Real Estate Register to consider the applicant’s request to provide her with the information contained in the real estate register concerning a specific plot of land. That judgment became final on 4 May 2007 but was not enforced. On 22 March 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court clarified the way of execution of the judgment of 13 April 2007, specifying that it had to be executed by the Directorate of the Federal Registration Service, as a successor of the defendant authority under that judgment. However, the judgment remained unenforced.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non‑enforcement of the judgment in her favour.
X. ILNITSKAYA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 40841/11)
The applicant, Ms Natalya Vasilyevna Ilnitskaya, was born on 1 September 1961 and lives in the Saratov Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant is a former member of the Russian military forces. On 24 November 2008 the Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region upheld her right to a subsidy for housing. That judgment became final on 9 December 2008 but was not enforced.
In January 2011 the applicant brought proceedings under the Compensation Act claiming compensation for delay in enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On 4 February 2011 the Saratov Regional Court declared her action inadmissible. The court observed that the judgment in her favour did not order payments from the State budget and thus found the Compensation Act inapplicable. On 12 April 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld that decision on appeal. The judgment of 24 November 2008 in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delays in enforcement of the judgment in her favour and the absence of effective domestic remedies in this respect.
XI. LITVINOVICH v. RUSSIA (Application no. 43038/11)
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Andreyevich Litvinovich, was born on 26 January 1958 and lives in the Tver Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant suffers from disability as a result of extensive exposure to radioactive emissions during emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. He is entitled to various social benefits in this connection.
On 2 August 2006 the Kimry Town Court of the Tver Region ordered the Military Commissioner, inter alia, to index-link the monthly payments to the applicant. The judgment became final but was not enforced. On 27 May 2010 the Kimry Town Court granted another action by the applicant and found it unlawful that the applicant was receiving lower amounts than those he should have received in accordance with the judgment of 2 August 2006. The court found that the Military Commissioner failed to index-link the monthly payments and ordered him to put an end to that failure.
In 2011 the applicant brought proceedings under the Compensation Act, claiming compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment of 2 August 2006 in the part concerning the court order to index-link the monthly payments. On 4 April 2011 the Tver Regional Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible. The court observed that the court order concerned the authorities’ general obligation to index-link payments and did not involve specific amounts to be paid from the State budget. Accordingly, it found the Compensation Act inapplicable. On 12 May 2011 that decision was upheld on appeal. The judgments of 2 August 2006 and 27 May 2010 remain unenforced in the relevant part.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour.
XII. GRINKO v. RUSSIA (Application no. 45381/11)
The applicant, Mr Aleksey Alekseyevich Grinko, was born on 25 July 1978 and lives in the Moscow Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant is a military serviceman. On 8 December 2006, the Naro‑Fominskiy Garnison Military Court ordered the Commandant of military unit no. 72064 to provide the applicant by priority with housing in accordance with the law in force at the material time. This judgment became final on 25 December 2006 but was not enforced.
In 2010 the applicant brought an action under the Compensation Act, claiming compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 26 October 2010 the Moscow Circuit Military Court declared his action inadmissible. The court observed that the judgment in the applicant’s favour involved an obligation in kind and thus found the Compensation Act inadmissible. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 25 January 2011. The judgment of 8 December 2006 remains unenforced.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
XIII. ANTONOVA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 55929/11)
The applicant, Ms Svetlana Nikolayevna Antonova, was born on 10 September 1959 and lives in the Moscow Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant is on service in the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (“the FSB”). On 5 April 2005 the Odintsovo Garnison Military Court ordered the FSB to provide the applicant and her family by priority with housing in accordance with the law in force at the material time and located in the geographic area of her service. That judgment became final on 22 April 2005 but was not enforced.
In August 2011 the applicant brought proceedings under the Compensation Act, claiming compensation for non-enforcement of that judgment. On 29 August 2011 the Moscow Circuit Military Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible. The court observed that the judgment in her favour did not order payments from the State budget and thus found the Compensation Act inapplicable. It is not clear whether the applicant appealed against that decision. The judgment of 5 April 2005 remains unenforced to date.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour and the absence of effective domestic remedies in this respect.
XIV. NOVITSKY v. RUSSIA (Application no. 57834/11)
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Ivanovich Novitskiy, was born on 9 April 1965 and lives in Smolensk.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant is a military serviceman. On 18 March 2010 the Smolensk Garnison Military Court ordered the Commandant of military unit no. 06755 to grant the applicant housing by priority. This judgment became final on 3 April 2010 but remains unenforced.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the absence of effective domestic remedies in this respect.
XV. TSVETKOVA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 60822/11)
The applicant, Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Tsvetkova, was born on 12 December 1951 and lives in Kostroma. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Vinogradov.
A. The circumstances of the case
On 15 December 2008 the Ostrovskiy District Court of the Kostroma Region ordered the local administration to provide the applicant with comfortable social housing in accordance with the sanitary and technical regulations in force and located in Ostrovskoye, the Kostroma Region. On 30 December 2008 that judgment became final.
In June 2011 the applicant brought an action under the Compensation Act, claiming compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On 21 June 2011 the Kostroma Regional Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible. The court observed that the judgment in the applicant’s favour concerned an obligation in kind, namely the provision of housing, and thus found the Compensation Act inapplicable. The decision was upheld on appeal by the same court on 27 July 2011. The judgment of 15 December 2008 remains unexecuted.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about non‑enforcement of the judgment in her favour and the lack of effective domestic remedies in this respect.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants’ favour fully enforced and, if so, when?
2. Were the applicants’ rights under Article 6 of the Convention violated on account of the alleged delays in enforcement of the judgments in their favour in all the above cases (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002‑III)? Was there also a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of those delays?
3. Did the applicants dispose in accordance with Article 13 of effective domestic remedies in order to ensure proper and timely enforcement of the domestic judgments in their favour or to obtain adequate redress for late enforcement (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 96-117, ECHR 2009)? Reference is made, in particular, to the fact that the Federal Law no. 68-FZ of 30 April 2010 is only applicable to judgments ordering monetary payments by the State (see, inter alia, the Joint Resolution of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Commercial Court no. 30/64 of 23 December 2010), while the judgments in the applicants’ favour here at issue involve the State’s obligations in kind.
4. Do the present applications reveal a systemic problem in the Russian Federation or a practice incompatible with the Convention with regard to both delayed enforcement of the judgments ordering the State to comply with various obligations in kind and the lack of effective domestic remedies, either preventive or compensatory, in respect of such enforcement delays? Does the present situation warrant a pilot judgment procedure having regard, inter alia, to numerous similar cases already pending before – and still being lodged with – the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 125-146)?
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
29920/05
26/07/2005
Mikhail Yefimovich GERASIMOV
30/06/1927 (demise 28/03/2011)
Vladivostok
3553/06
28/12/2005
Andrey Gennadyevich SHMAKOV
30/10/1960
Yakutsk
13934/06
01/03/2006
Viktor Georgiyevich RADIONOV
31/08/1955
Birobidzhan
15351/06
15/03/2006
Nina Petrovna FEDYASHOVA
16/02/1936
Murom
Tatyana Vladimirovna YEMELYANOVA
28/03/1963
Murom
18876/10
13/03/2010
Lyubov Mikhaylovna BARANOVA
17/04/1960
Baz-Syzgan
61186/10
04/10/2010
Tatyana Salikhzanovna KOSTYLEVA
13/09/1960
Syktyvkar
21176/11
21/02/2011
Yuriy Vasilyevich STAROSTENKOV
08/06/1954
Smolensk
36112/11
24/05/2011
Anatoliy Arturovich ZAKHARCHENKO
04/09/1966
St Petersburg
36426/11
11/05/2011
Marina Yevgenye TROSHINA
14/07/1961
Moscow
40841/11
15/06/2011
Natalya Vasilyevna ILNITSKAYA
01/09/1961
Shikhany
43038/11
16/06/2011
Vitaliy Andreyevich LITVINOVICH
26/01/1958
Kimry
45381/11
03/07/2011
Aleksey Alekseyevich GRINKO
25/07/1978
Vatutinki
55929/11
18/08/2011
Svetlana Nikolayevna ANTONOVA
10/09/1959
Khimki
57834/11
15/08/2011
Vitaliy Ivanovich NOVITSKIY
09/04/1965
Smolensk
60822/11
16/08/2011
Yelena Aleksandrovna TSVETKOVA
12/12/1951
Kostroma
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy