FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 48758/99
by Lyubov Alekseyevna VOLKOVA and others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 September 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrsE. Palm, President,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrR. Türmen,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrR. Maruste,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
and MrM. O'Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 28 December 1998 and registered on 14 June 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Volkova Lyubov Alekseyevna, Melkhanova Valentina Petrovna and Panfilova Tatyana Vasilyevna, are Russian nationals, born in 1959, 1947 and 1948 respectively, and living in Volgograd, Russia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The housing dispute
The applicants lived in a dormitory in Volgograd.
The first applicant and her family (four persons: the applicant, her husband and two children, born in 1982 and 1987) moved into the dormitory in 1985.
The second applicant and her family (five persons: the applicant, her husband, mother, daughter and grandson, born in 1993) moved into the dormitory in 1984.
The third applicant and her disabled daughter (born in 1973) moved into the dormitory in 1985.
Each of the three families occupied two rooms in the dormitory, with shared kitchen, shower and toilet facilities. Each of the applicants was registered as living in the dormitory permanently (that is, they had a “permanent propiska”), which was their sole residence.
In 1993 the ownership of the dormitory was transferred to a company called “VNIITNASH”.
In 1995 the applicants were ordered by the District Prosecutor of the Sovetskiy district of Volgograd to vacate the premises because the building required urgent structural renovation. The applicants were provided with temporary housing in dormitories in Volgograd, although smaller and of inferior quality. In August 1995 the applicants were forcibly evicted from the building and their belongings were transferred to the temporary rooms that were offered to them.
The family of the first applicant, the Volkovs, were provided with a room of 16 square metres, where their belongings were put. The room is in a student dormitory. It had cold water only, had no shower facilities and the kitchen facilities were minimal. The Volkovs initially lived with other members of their family, but in August 1998 had to move into the room. In order to have space for themselves, their belongings, including furniture, were moved to a storage. The room is adjacent to a toilet, which smells strongly, is damp and infested with fungi and insects.
The family of the second applicant, the Melkhanovs, were offered a room of 13 square metres. After their personal belongings were put there, there was no more space to house five people. The family now lives elsewhere, in a room of 10 square metres. All their belongings continued to be in another place. The family could not use them due to lack of space.
The applicants and their families brought an action against VNIITMASH and the administration of the Sovetskiy district for provision of permanent housing and non-pecuniary damages. In it they alleged that though the status of the building was a dormitory, their contracts were not for dormitory-type accommodation, but for proper flats. On 24 April 1996 the Volgograd Regional Court confirmed a first instance judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court to reject the applicants' claim. VNIITMASH undertook to allow the applicants to return to the dormitory after the renovation, which was scheduled to be completed in September 1996.
The building was not renovated on time, and the first applicant, Volkova, applied to the court again. On 22 June 1999 the district administration accepted her claims. The Sovetskiy District Court judgment ordered the administration to provide the applicant with “comfortable” (благоустроенное) housing. The judgment was not appealed by either of the parties, entered into force and was forwarded to the bailiff in July 1999.
On 8 September 1999 the renovation in the original dormitory building was completed and ownership of the building was transferred to the district administration, with a status of a dormitory.
On 24 September 1999 the administration of the Sovetskiy district issued a voucher (ордер) to the Volkov's family for two rooms of 34 square metres in the newly renovated dormitory building. It appears that the bailiff closed the enforcement procedures on 11 October 1999.
The first applicant refused to accept the accommodation offered, as she believed that the housing in the dormitory did not correspond to the definition of “comfortable”, as ordered by the court on 22 June 1999. She also alleged that the conditions had become worse since the renovation. In particular, the applicants would only be able to register as temporary occupants of the building, the rooms offered to them were separated from each other and were connected by a corridor shared with other rooms. Further, they were required to share the toilet and kitchen facilities with a larger number of families, and the quality of the building remained very poor, even after the renovation.
On her complaint, the bailiff reopened the enforcement procedures and on 23 February 2000 prohibited the issuing of housing vouchers by the district administration and seized the district Housing Registry (журнал выдачи ордеров отдела по учету распределения жилья).
On 27 April 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court, on the Administration's complaint, quashed the bailiff's order of 23 February 2000. On 28 June 2000 the Volgograd Regional Court confirmed this decision. The courts found that the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999 had been executed by the administration which provided her with “comfortable” housing in the dormitory, and the applicant's refusal to accept it did not warrant continuation of enforcement procedures.
On 13 October 1999 the district Administration issued a voucher to the third applicant, giving her a room in the original dormitory. The applicant did not contest the decision and moved in. On 18 July 2000 the administration offered three rooms in the dormitory to the first applicant, totalling 53,5 square metres. The first and the second applicants and their families did not accept the places in the dormitory and refused to move in.
Procedure in the supervisory instance
On 6 June 2000 the rapporteur, under Rule 49 § 1 of the Rules of Court, asked the Russian Government the following questions:
“1. What is the current situation with respect to enforcement of the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd of 22 June 1999?
2. To what type of accommodation is the applicant entitled, according to the above-mentioned judicial decision?”
The Government responded on 18 September 2000. They informed the Court that on 17 July 2000 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court, acting in supervisory review upon a request (протест) lodged by its president, had quashed the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999 and remitted the case. On 26 July 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court rejected the applicant's claim, stating that she was only entitled to the housing in the renewed dormitory. It did not entitle her to “comfortable” housing. The decision was confirmed on 30 August 2000 by the Volgograd Regional Court.
On 27 July and 25 October 2000 the first applicant informed the Court that the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999, by which the Administration was obliged to provide the first applicant with “comfortable” housing, had been quashed in supervisory review. The Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court had met on 17 July 2000, and the applicant was not aware of it as the information notice was sent to her only on 13 July when she was out of town. The representatives of the Administration and the district prosecutor's office were present at the hearing and presented their arguments.
B. Relevant domestic law
Execution of a judgment
Under Articles 13, 209 and 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court judgment which has become effective is binding and must be executed.
Under Articles 208 and 284 of the Code, a first instance judgment, if it is not appealed, becomes effective ten days after pronouncement. After the judgment becomes effective, no party to the proceedings can submit, on the basis of the same facts, a claim which is essentially the same, or contest the legal or factual conclusions reached by the courts.
“Supervisory review”
Article 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that regional and higher courts may conduct “supervisory reviews” of the activities of the lower courts. This means, according to Articles 319, 320 and 327, that specific senior judicial officers may, at any time, on the request by the person concerned or on their own motion, lodge with a higher court an “extraordinary appeal” (протест) against a final decision of a lower court on all questions of fact and law. If an “extraordinary appeal” is lodged, the proceedings recommence and execution of the judgment may be adjourned (Article 323). The “supervisory review” procedure is separate from proceedings whereby a case may be reviewed on grounds of new facts (Articles 333 -337).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they can not enjoy their family and private life due to bad housing conditions.
2. The applicants allege that they have been subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3.
3. The applicants complain that the court decisions were not fair. They invoke Article 6 of the Convention. The first applicant in particular complains that when the judgment of 22 July 1999 was annulled by the supervisory instance on 17 July 2000, that she was not properly informed of the hearing and could not present her arguments. Subsequent decisions of the lower courts followed the decision of the supervisory instance and the courts were not independent and impartial.
4. The applicants allege that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has been violated, as the housing they received after the renovation is of worse quality than they had before the renovation. They also complain that their personal belongings were spoiled by disuse and bad conditions of storage during the time they were waiting for the housing issue to be resolved.
5. The applicants allege that they are discriminated against on the grounds of their low social status. They refer to Article 14 of the Convention.
6. The applicants also complain that they do not have effective remedies in respect of the above violations, as the findings of the courts and other state bodies were not in their favour. They refer to Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The second and the third applicants complain about the proceedings and their outcome, invoking Articles 3, 8, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
As regards those complaints, however, the final decision was taken on 24 April 1996 by the Volgograd Regional Court. The second and the third applicants were not parties to the new proceedings initiated by the first applicant in 1999.
As regards the second and the third applicants, it follows that the final decision was taken before 5 May 1998, which is the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia. This part of the application is, therefore, incompatible with the competence of the Court ratione temporis.
2. The first applicant complains that her right to respect for her family and private life, guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention, has been violated by her living conditions since her eviction in 1995. Article 8 § 1 reads as follows:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”
The eviction of the applicant and her family occurred in 1995. The temporary housing of allegedly inferior quality was offered to the applicant in August 1995. The final court decision on this part of the claim was taken on 24 April 1996 by the Volgograd Regional Court.
It follows that the events and the final decision as regards this part of the complaint all occurred before 5 May 1998, which is the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia. This part of the application is, therefore, incompatible with the competence of the Court ratione temporis.
3. The first applicant complains that she did not receive a fair trial. In particular, the first applicant complains about the annulment of a final judgment in her favour by a supervisory instance in an unfair procedure. She refers to Article 6, which, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal ... ”.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
4. The first applicant further complains that she was forced to live in conditions that amount to degrading and inhuman treatment, that her rights to respect for family and private life and property were violated. She also complains that she was discriminated on the grounds of low income and social status and that she did not have access to effective remedies against the above violations. The applicant invokes Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the first applicant's complaints concerning the right to a fair trial in the context of quashing of a decision in the applicants' favour in supervisory review proceedings and her complaints under Articles 3, 8, 13, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Michael O'BoyleElisabeth Palm
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy