FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 3180/03
by Aleksey ZHELEZNYAKOV and Svetlana ZHELEZNYAKOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Aleksey Leonidovich Zheleznyakov and Ms Svetlana Vyacheslavovna Zheleznyakova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1968 and 1970 respectively and live in Penza. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1993 the first applicant received a position at the Penza Regional Hospital and moved to Penza together with his wife (“the second applicant”).
In 1999 the applicants sued the Penza Town Council and the Penza Regional Hospital for the alleged failure to grant them a flat in accordance with Russian law.
On 25 January 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza partly granted the applicants’ claims and placed them on a waiting list, ordering that Penza Regional Hospital provide the family with housing in accordance with the existing order of precedence. The District Court dismissed the claims against the Penza Town Council.
On 27 February 2001 the Penza Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and held the Town Council jointly liable for allocation of a flat to the applicants.
On 7 May 2001 the bailiffs began enforcement but the judgments could not be enforced as the order of precedence had not been determined by the Penza Town Council.
At the applicants’ initiative, on 7 March 2003 the Presidium of the Penza Regional Court varied the previous judgments by way of supervisory review and held that the applicants were to receive a flat without further delay.
On 14 November 2003 the applicants accepted the flat which had been offered to them by the Penza Town Council.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 January 2001, as amended on 7 March 2003.
THE LAW
The applicants complained about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, 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 Government submitted that the judgment had been enforced without excessive delay.
The applicants insisted that the length of enforcement had been substantial.
The Court notes that the original wording of the judgment of 25 January 2001, as upheld on 27 March 2001, did not impose on the domestic authorities an obligation to grant a flat to the applicants immediately. After the reference to the order of precedence had been taken away by the Presidium’s decision on 7 March 2003, the applicants may be said to have obtained a legitimate expectation to receive a flat without further delay (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 36, ECHR 2005‑... (extracts)). Eight months after the amendment, the judgment was enforced and the applicants received the flat.
The Court reiterates that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III, Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, §§ 51-52, 3 November 2005). Admittedly, enforcement of a judgment concerning allocation of a flat may take a longer time than payment of a sum of money (Shilov and Baykova v. Russia, no. 703/02, §§ 21-26, 29 June 2006).
In the present case the period of enforcement which lasted for some eight months does 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.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and declare the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy