THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41792/05
Dmitriy Vladimirovich PEROV and
Viktoriya Vasilyevna PEROVA against Russia
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 March 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, 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”).
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
In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the allegedly lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour are inadmissible.
According to the Court’s consistent position, the reasonableness of a delay in the enforcement of a final judgment is to be determined having regard, in particular, to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant’s own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, the amount and the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
Admittedly, enforcement of a judgment concerning allocation of a flat or performance of certain actions, such as allocation of a land plot or reinstatement complicated by the liquidation of an employer, may take a longer time than payment of a sum of money (see, for instance, Shilov and Baykova v. Russia, no. 703/02, §§ 21-26, 29 June 2006).
The periods of enforcement in the applicants’ cases, save for Mr Merkushev in application no. 68090/14 (see appended table below) lasted for no more than just over twelve months which do not appear so long as to impair the essence of the applicants’ right to a court or represent a disproportionate interference with their property rights (see, for similar reasoning, Zheleznyakov and Zheleznyakova v. Russia (dec.), no. 3180/03, 15 March 2007).
As regards Mr Merkushev (application no. 68090/14), this is the second time the Court has to examine the situation with the alleged non-enforcement of one and the same judgment secured by the applicant on 20 November 2000. In the previous case brought by the applicant to the Court, it dismissed his complaint of the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 20 November 2000 as manifestly ill-founded, having concluded as follows:
“To date the enforcement has lasted for over seven years. But it is the applicant who is responsible for the bulk of this period. The State first offered him a flat as early as three months after the judgment, but he refused this and several subsequent offers. The applicant explains his refusal with the small size of the flat, but the Court notes that the judgment did not specify the size (it only required the flat to meet statutory norms), and the applicant’s interpretation of these norms has not been officially confirmed.” (see Merkushev v. Russia (dec.), no. 26761/03, 16 October 2008).
Turning to the circumstances of the present application no. 68090/14 and examining the period of the alleged non-enforcement of the judgment of 20 November 2000 after its previous decision on 16 October 2008, the Court still finds that the continued period of the non-enforcement is attributed entirely to the applicant’s behaviour. He continues to refuse the flats proposed to him by the authorities, while making no attempt to bring the alleged inconsistencies between the proposals and the judgment award to the attention of the domestic authorities.
The Court therefore finds that the applicants’ complaints of delays in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of the judgments.
The Court reiterates that Article 13 applies only where a person has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right. Having regard to its finding above under Article 6 § 1 the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that the applicants had no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Finally, the applicants in applications nos. 41792/05 and 40419/07 also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the two applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do 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 applications nos. 41792/05 and 40419/07 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 29 March 2018.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order
1.
41792/05
30/10/2005
Household
Dmitriy Vladimirovich Perov
09/12/1963
Viktoriya Vasilyevna Perova
31/08/1963
Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, 24/03/2004
20/04/2004
23/04/2004
3 day(s)
"[the City Council] to resettle [the applicants] into a flat in Novatorov str., ... to transfer title to the flat to [the first applicant] ... to register family members in it"
2.
38502/07
03/07/2007
Anton Valentinovich Fedorov
02/02/1975
Zarbeyev Rustem Abdullovich
St Petersburg
Svertlovskiy Garrison Military Court, 16/02/2007
16/02/2007
29/10/2007
7 month(s) and 28 day(s)
[the military unit] to provide the applicant and members of his family with a flat
3.
40419/07
16/08/2007
Leonid Grigoryevich Shevchuk
19/04/1954
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 12/01/2005
Norilsk Town Court, 11/08/2005
Norilsk Town Court, 19/04/2006
Norilsk Town Court, 13/11/2006
Norilsk Town Court, 28/05/2008
12/01/2005
10/10/2005
10/11/2006
24/11/2006
11/08/2008
01/04/2005
2 month(s) and 21 day(s)
19/10/2006
1 year(s) and 10 day(s)
25/01/2007
2 month(s) and 16 day(s)
19/03/2007
3 month(s) and 24 day(s)
03/12/2008
3 month(s) and 23 day(s)
to conduct medical examination and to determine the level of applicant’s disability
4.
40513/08
25/07/2008
Olga Aleksandrovna Smirnova
09/03/1973
Chukhlomskiy District Court of the Kostroma Region, 14/12/2007
Chukhlomskiy District Court of the Kostroma Region, 17/09/2008
06/02/2008
27/09/2008
01/10/2008
7 month(s) and 26 day(s)
05/12/2008
2 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1) " ... [the District Leskhoz] to reinstate [the applicant] in her job ... and to pay [her the sums due] ..."
2) " ... [the District Leskhoz] to pay [to the applicant the sums due] ..."
5.
48038/08
30/08/2008
Mariya Gamzatovna Kurbanova
13/05/1958
Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, 16/04/2008, in light of the judgment of 27/06/2008
16/04/2008
27/06/2008
2 month(s) and 12 day(s)
The Administration of the town of Buynaksk to reinstate the applicant in the position of the school director
6.
13277/14
03/03/2014
Nikolay Vasilyevich Goncharov
16/12/1949
Ostrogozhskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region, 08/02/2013
15/03/2013
17/01/2014
10 month(s) and 3 day(s)
" ...the Administration of the Ostrogozhsky Municipal District to register a land plot situated in Ostrogozhsk, Ordzhonikidze str., 162 within ten months from the date the present judgment enters into force ... "
7.
68090/14
23/06/2014
Aleksey Nikolayevich Merkushev
28/06/1959
Military Court of the Leningrad Circuit, 20/11/2000
16/10/2008
pending
More than 8 year(s) and
11 month(s) and
22 day(s)
" ... [the Commander of the military unit] to ... provide [the applicant] with housing ... "
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy