THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19524/05
Tatyana Fedorovna OVCHINNIKOVA against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 6260/12 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder 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.
B. Complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the alleged lengthy non-enforcement of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour.
Having regard to the materials and the parties’ submissions, the Court finds it established that the judgements issued in favour of the applicants were fully enforced on the dates stated in the appended table (see below). The Court’s conclusions are supported by the findings of the domestic courts which 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. 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 v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, § 173, 1 July 2014, with further references).
1. Applications nos. 19524/05, 54383/09 and 2528/11
The Court observes that in the three applications indicated above the final judgments in the applicants’ favour had been successfully and fully enforced more than six months before the applicants lodged their applications with the Court (for the details see appended table below). In view of the lack of domestic remedies at the time to complain about lengthy non-enforcement of final judgments (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 117, ECHR 2009, and Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 165), the six-month time-limit started running on the date following that of the complete enforcement of the judgment. The Court therefore finds that the present applications were submitted belatedly and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
2. Applications nos. 31192/10 and 6260/12
Turning to applications nos. 31192/10 and 6260/12, the Court observes that it took the domestic authorities slightly over six (for application no. 31192/10) and eight months (for application no. 6260/12) to enforce the final judgments in the applicants’ favour. However, the applicants maintained that the delay in the enforcement was nevertheless excessive.
The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
According to the Court’s consistent position, a delay of less than one year in payment of a monetary judicial award and a delay of no more than two years in the enforcement of a judgment requiring allocation of housing are in principle compatible with the Convention, unless it discloses an exceptional situation requiring special diligence (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§ 169 and 171, and Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 14330/07, 5 February 2009).
The Court observes that in the instant case the judgements were enforced within the period of less than a year. In the circumstances of the cases and in the light of the Court’s case-law, the Court considers that the periods of the non-enforcement did not fall short of the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, Suvorov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 38766/07, 23 June 2015, and Belkin and Others, cited above).
It follows that these complaints should be rejected for being manifestly ill‑founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non‑enforcement complaints. Having regard to its findings under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 above in respect of the two applications, the Court concludes that the applicants had no “arguable claim” under those Convention provisions and thus their complaint under Article 13 is also manifestly ill-founded. It must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
C. Remaining complaints
In application no. 6260/12 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 14 June 2018.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
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
19524/05
16/04/2005
Tatyana Fedorovna Ovchinnikova
25/01/1958
Grachevskiy District Court of Orenburg Region, 05/06/1997
05/05/1998
20/11/2003
5 years and 6 months and 16 days
“[housing authorities] to overhaul the roof on [the applicant’s] house”
54383/09
25/05/2009
Artush Vladimirovich Nalbandyan
26/06/1954
Leninskiy District Court of Kirov, 30/07/2002
27/08/2002
04/08/2004
1 year and 11 months and 9 days
"...the Administration of the Leninskiy District of Kirov to provide [the applicant] with [housing] ... "
31192/10
15/04/2010
Valentina Valerianovna Vasilyeva
05/02/1973
Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, 18/12/2009
12/01/2010
15/07/2010
6 months and 4 days
" ... [the Cheboksary town administration] to provide [the applicant] with [housing] ... "
2528/11
11/10/2010
Yevgeniy Yuryevich Solovey
14/10/1976
Makhachkala Garrison Military Court, 02/07/2008
18/07/2008
09/09/2009
1 year and 1 month and 23 days
"...the commander of the military unit no. 40153 to assign [the applicant] for a medical examination to Central Navy Hospital no. 32 to determine his fitness for military service..."
6260/12
03/01/2012
Vasiliy Sergeyevich Lobarev
25/04/1980
Kiselevsk Town Court, 14/06/2011
05/08/2011
13/04/2012
8 months and 9 days
"...The Administration of the Kiselevsk Town Circuit to grant [the applicant]...[housing].. on a priority basis under the social tenancy agreement..."
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy