CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 novembre 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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .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 } .s12BB0D80 { width:4.28%; 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 } .sBE9014D9 { width:12.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9BEEF8D5 { width:13.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3D156BE3 { width:12.22%; 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 } .s382DCD86 { width:11.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1EB68EF3 { width:15.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF0251027 { width:14.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s45B1C486 { width:16.54%; 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 } .sE254EF48 { width:4.28%; 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 } .s4DE81897 { width:12.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E401780 { width:13.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5F3D627 { width:12.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC7364FC0 { width:11.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s71CBB212 { width:15.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s99408E41 { width:14.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5748848A { width:16.54%; 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }         THIRD SECTION           CASE OF KAZACHKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33064/07 and 8 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   30 November 2017             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kazachkova 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 9 November 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.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted unilateral declaration in some applications which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI). III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 AND   ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 7.     The applicants complained 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.” 8.     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). 9.     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. 10.     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. 11.     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 indicated in the appended table below. 12.     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. 13.     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). 14.     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. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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.” 16.     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, cited above, §§   187 ‑ 200; and Korotyayeva and Others , cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 17.     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. 18.     At the same time, the Court notes from the Government’s submissions that in applications nos. 49569/13 and 68839/13 the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour have remained unenforced to date. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike some of the applications out of the list;   3.     Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, as indicated in the appended table, admissible;   4.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1;   5.     Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article   13 of the Convention;   6. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions in applications nos. 49569/13 and 68839/13;   7.     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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 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   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 and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros) [1]     33064/07 05/06/2007 Tatyana Nikolayevna Kazachkova 04/01/1973 Albert Aflitunov 16/04/1949   Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, 19/11/2003   06/04/2004   04/09/2009 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 30 day(s)   To register a trade union 6,000     13600/10 12/02/2010 Valentina Aleksandrovna Stepnova 25/01/1946 Bazarnosyzganskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk Region, 27/02/2009   07/04/2009   27/12/2010 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s)   To provide heating supply of the applicant’s apartment 1,500     40437/10 28/06/2010 Sergey Alekseyevich Loginov 21/09/1959 Maikop Garrison Military Court, 30/11/2009     Maikop City Court of the Republic of Adygeya 18/09/2009   10/12/2009         23/10/2009       10/11/2016 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 1 day(s)     11/04/2011 1 year and 5 month(s) and 19 day(s) provision of documents related to housing       provision of documents related to housing 6,000     78491/12 18/08/2012 Vladimir Petrovich Loktionov 07/04/1950 Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow, 21/10/2004     Presidium of Moscow City Court, 15/06/2006   10/12/2004         15/06/2006   18/12/2013 9 year(s) and 9 day(s)     18/12/2013 7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 4 day(s)   "... the Head of the [Forensic Bureau] to incorporate in the Rehabilitation Program ... a profession ..." "... acknowledge the unlawfulness of the actions of the Head of the [Forensic Bureau] ..." 6,000     20600/13 31/01/2013 Vladimir Stepanovich Sazonov 04/03/1953 Volodarskiy District Court of Bryansk, 20/12/2011   21/02/2012   03/04/2013 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 14 day(s)   exclude the applicant’s house from the list of houses to be demolished 1,000     49569/13 10/07/2013 Household   Viktoriya Viktorovna Klassen 01/10/1984   Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Soplin 25/05/1955   Tamara Anatolyevna Soplina 15/06/1952 Orenburskiy District Court of Orenburg Region, 16/02/2009   06/03/2009   pending More than 8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 23 day(s)   repair works in the applicants’ house 6,500     63406/13 22/07/2013 Aleksey Alekseyevich Grinko 25/07/1978 Military Court of Naro-Fominsk, 17/02/2011     Troitsky District Court of Moscow, 18/06/2013   09/03/2011         24/06/2013   01/04/2016 5 year(s) and 24 day(s)       01/04/2016 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 9 day(s)   provision of housing 3,644     68839/13 25/09/2009 Igor Stanislavovich Yevseyev 20/01/1955 Syktyvkar Federal Court, 08/02/2002   18/02/2002   pending More than 15 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)   provision of housing 6,000     76570/13 18/11/2013 Aleksey Alekseyevich Grinko 25/07/1978 Naro-Fominsk Garrison Military Court, 18/11/2011   29/11/2011   27/10/2014 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s)   recalculation and payment of monetary allowance 2,590   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.