THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 1157/12 and 35665/18
Vladimir Sergeyevich LOBAREV against Russia
and Zlata Ildarovna VASILYEVA against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.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 the lack of an effective remedy to complain about failure to enforce domestic decisions)
The applicants complained about the delayed non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour by the State. These complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, 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 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.”
The applicants also argued under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy to complain about the failure to enforce domestic decisions in their favour. The relevant Convention provision reads as follows:
“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.”
Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the present applications should be declared inadmissible.
The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002‑III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court has to look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what was the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
As concerns application no. 1157/12, the Court observes that the judgment of 26 May 2011, which entered into force and became enforceable on 13 July 2011 and by which the applicant was to be provided, as priority, with housing by the municipal authorities, was fully enforced on 3 May 2012. As to the obligations in kind, in particular the provision of premises, the Court notes that the enforcement mechanism is different from cases of monetary obligations (see, mutatis mutandis, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 167-74, 1 July 2014). In the present case the period of enforcement in itself does not appear to raise any questions under the Convention. The Court considers that the periods attributable to the authorities in the present case were compatible with the Convention requirements (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 171, and, mutantis mutandis, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 and 15 others, 5 February 2009, see also Lebedenko v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 60432/13, § 52, 4 December 2018, in which the Court considered that the period of slightly over eleven months for enforcement of a court judgment related to the provision of housing was compatible with the requirements of the Convention).
It follows that this part of application no. 1157/12 is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
The applicant in application no. 1157/12 also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement. The Court has found above that the non-enforcement complaint did not give rise to an arguable claim of a breach of a Convention right. Accordingly, Article 13 of the Convention does not apply.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Turning to application no. 35665/18, the Court observes that the applicant complained that in 2017 she had lodged a claim with a Russian court seeking damages for a lengthy failure to enforce the final judgment of 3 March 2016 by which municipal authorities were to provide her with a flat. By judgment of 4 July 2017 the Saratov Regional Court awarded her 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 450 euros) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement. That judgment became final on 18 June 2018 when upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia. The applicant complained to the Court that the sum awarded to her for the delayed non-enforcement was too small.
The Government, following the communication of the case, informed the Court that the judgment of 3 March 2016 had been enforced in full on 22 May 2018, that is almost two months before the application was lodged with the Court. However, neither the applicant nor her representative, Mr Vologin, had informed the Court about that important fact when lodging the application or at any point thereafter. Therefore, the Government asked the Court to dismiss the case as an abuse of the right of individual petition by the applicant.
The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if it was knowingly based on “untrue facts” (see, among other authorities, Jian v. Romania (dec.), no. 46640/99, 22 May 2001, and Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006) or if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006, and Basileo v. Italy (dec.), no. 11303/02, 23 August 2011). Similarly, an application can be rejected as abusive if applicants – despite their obligation under Article 47 of the Rules of Court – fail to inform the Court about new, important developments regarding their pending applications, given that such conduct prevents the Court from ruling on the matter in question with full knowledge of the facts (see Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010, and Bekauri v. Georgia (dec.), no. 14102/02, §§ 21-23, 10 April 2012).
The Court notes that in her application, which was lodged on 16 July 2018, the applicant complained of the lengthy non-enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. On 7 March 2019 the Court communicated the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the respondent Government, having noted in the communication report that the enforcement proceedings pertaining to the judgment in the applicant’s favour were still pending.
It was only from the Government’s observations that the Court learned that the final judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced before she even lodged the application with the Court.
The Court considers that this information concerns the very essence of the applicant’s complaint (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25‑27, 2 December 2008, and Tatalović and Dekić v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15433/07, 29 May 2012). Moreover, neither the applicant’s representative nor the applicant furnished any explanation whatsoever for the failure to inform the Court about the date of the enforcement of the final judgment both at the time of lodging the application, as well as for the period of almost eight months between the date of the introduction of the application with the Court and the communication of the case to the Government. They also did not contact the Court at any point after the communication of the case when it was clear that the Court pursued the applicant’s complaint as one of continued failure on the part of the State to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour. Therefore, having regard to the importance of that failure on the part of the applicant for the proper determination of the present case, and in the absence of any comment by her or her representative on the matter, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided in Article 34 of the Convention.
It therefore rejects application no. 35665/18 as inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020.
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
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)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non‑enforcement period
End date of non‑enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order
1157/12
18/11/2011
Vladimir Sergeyevich LOBAREV
18/06/1977
Kiselevsk Town Court, 26/05/2011
13/07/2011
03/05/2012
9 month(s) and 21 day(s)
"... the Kiselevsk Town Circuit Administration to grant [the applicant] [housing] on a priority basis under a social tenancy agreement ..., declare unlawful the [Administration’s] housing distribution decision of 01/07/2010, pay [him] RUB 200 in court expenses..."
35665/18
16/07/2018
Zlata Ildarovna VASILYEVA
29/10/1969
Vologin Aleksey Borisovich
Volsk
Saratov Regional Court, 03/03/2016
03/03/2016
22/05/2018
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 day(s)
to provide the applicant with a flat corresponding to specific requirements
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy