CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC45C2AB { width:3.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s13737FE2 { width:9.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2334154C { width:10.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s849054A2 { width:9.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s5F0BC093 { width:8.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFBA7D2EA { width:9.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3529ADEF { width:13.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s547B8932 { width:15.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8F1D38B1 { width:9.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s389B4756 { width:11.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8DBDE82D { width:3.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA9F57FD7 { width:9.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s143460DA { width:10.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1725DE53 { width:9.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBD7689E2 { width:8.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE814E08 { width:9.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8EC00A81 { width:13.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1EE5102E { width:15.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA8794593 { width:9.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB90A4095 { width:11.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }         THIRD SECTION         CASE OF ZAYNETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 325/07 and 7 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT           STRASBOURG   12 October 2017               This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zaynetdinov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 September 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 AND   ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 6.     The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention and on 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 13 “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.” 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.” 7.     The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article   6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.   Greece , no.   18357/91, §   40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II). 8.     In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, no. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having regard to the nature of the judicial awards in the applicants’ favour (see the appended table for details of court orders), the Court considers that the applicants had, by virtue of these judgments, a “legitimate expectation” to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour, as listed in the appended table below. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. 12.     The applicants also complained under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non ‑ enforcement. The Court has already noted the existence of a new domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced in the wake of the pilot judgment, which enables those concerned to seek compensation for damage sustained as a result of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 35555/05 and 6 others, 2 May 2017). Even though the remedy was – or still is – available to the applicants, the Court reiterates that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court, to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see Gerasimov and Others , cited above, §   230). 13.     However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia , nos.   13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27   June 2017; Kamneva and Others , cited above, and, mutatis mutandis , Tkhyegepso and Others v.   Russia, no.   44387/04 and 11   others, §§   21-24, 25   October 2011). This ruling is without prejudice to the Court’s future assessment of the new remedy. III.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     In application no.   37712/09, the applicant also complained about the enforcement of a final domestic judgment, other than that indicated in the appended table below. 15.     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 matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint 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 no. 37712/09 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and   4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 17.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law), and insofar as claims for just satisfaction were lodged by the applicants (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 187-200, 1 July 2014; and Korotyayeva and Others , cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 18.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. 19.     The Court further notes from the Government’s submissions that the domestic judgments in certain applications have remained unenforced to date (see the appended table). The State’s obligation to enforce those judgments is not in dispute. The Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the judgment in the applicants’ favour (see Pridatchenko and Others v.   Russia , nos.   2191/03 and 3   others, §   68, 21   June 2007, and Salikova v.   Russia , no.   25270/06, §   83, 15   July 2010). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, listed in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of the application no.   37712/09 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;   4.     Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaints under Article   13 of the Convention;   5.     Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;   6.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   7.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 October 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President 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 Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros) [2]     325/07 16/10/2006 Khabibula Aleksandrovich Zaynetdinov 10/11/1958     Krasnodar Garrison Military Court, 31/03/2006   11/04/2006   pending More than 11 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s)   " ... [Housing Commission]... to allocate flats ... with regard to [the applicant’s] rights ... "   0     53462/07 01/10/2007 Igor Nikolayevich Solopov 24/03/1969 Chernysheva Olga Aleksandrovna Yelizovo the Military Court of 35th Garrison , 05/12/2000   18/12/2000   pending More than 16 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 7 day(s)   "... commander of military unit no. 69262 to pay the applicant monetary allowance ... , to recalculate previously paid monetary allowance from 1 January 2000...; to recalculate previously paid pension arrears since 1 January 2000..."     5,000     60787/08 19/11/2008 Vladimir Yevgenyevich Sigayev 05/07/1952     Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 19/04/2006   02/05/2006   16/02/2009 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 15 day(s)   "... the Administration of Admiralteysky District of St Petersburg to provide [the applicant] with [housing]... on the basis of a sales-purchase agreement "       3,000     37712/09 21/06/2009 Nikolay Nikolayevich Belyayev 15/07/1959     Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan, 14/09/2009   30/09/2009   pending More than 7 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 25 day(s)   "...Federal Registration Service in the Tatarstan Republic to register [the applicant’s and his family members’] property right to two rooms [at the following address] within 14 days after the present judgment becomes final";   0     11176/10 08/02/2010 (6 applicants) Household Yuriy Vladimirovich Gavrilov 06/03/1965 Valentina Aleksandrovna Fomashina 22/04/1998 Yelena Vasilyevna Fomashina 23/05/1970 Dmitriy Yuryevich Gavrilov 14/11/2006 Sergey Yuryevich Gavrilov 27/11/1988 Liliya Georgiyevna Gavrilova 10/08/1959     Moscow Garrison Military Court, 07/04/2009   20/08/2009   pending More than 7 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 5 day(s)   "... [military housing commission] to provide [the applicants] with [housing] ... ” 35,500 to be paid directly to the account of the third applicant, Ms Yelena Vasilyevna Fomashina 6,000     39001/11 26/05/2011 Vladimir Sergeyevich Zvyagintsev 09/05/1964     the Military Court of Moscow Garrison , 09/07/2009   25/07/2009   04/02/2016 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)   "...ministry of Defence to provide [the applicant] with housing..."   6,000     47888/11 28/06/2011 Sergey Aleksandrovich Viktorov 30/11/1976     Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region, 30/09/2010   30/11/2010   pending More than 6 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 24 day(s)   "... the Chief of the Naval Engineering Service to put [the applicant] on the list of persons to be relocated from the closed military town Gorki-25 and to be granted a State housing certificate..."   6,000     31984/12 12/05/2012 Aleksandr Borisovich Frentiy 28/06/1959     the Military Court of Moscow Garrison , 23/11/2009   11/12/2009   pending More than 7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 14 day(s)   « ...provide [the applicant and his family members], with priority, with housing in the place of his military service in Moscow in conformity with the established legal norms in force... »   0   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable. [2] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.