CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3CC56E4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-3.3pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s79F97CBB { width:16.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1B50D646 { width:185.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 77056/14 Eduard Nikolayevich SHTOLTS against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   January 2018 as a Chamber composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are three Russian nationals. A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M.   Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour and their enforcement status (a)     Mr Shtolts (application no.   77056/14) 4.     In 2010 the applicant’s house was destroyed in a fire. On 26   November 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court ordered the administration of Syktyvkar to provide him with housing in the city measuring no less than 48.1 sq.m. in size and complying with the necessary sanitary and technical requirements. On an unspecified date the judgment became enforceable, and on 7   February 2013 enforcement proceedings were started. Several requests by the applicant to have the judgment enforced and complaints to the authorities did not produce any tangible results. 5 .     As the judgment remained unenforced, the applicant asked the court to change the manner of execution of the judgment. On 28   May 2014 the court dismissed his application, and on 21   July 2014 the refusal was upheld on appeal. The court held that enforcement of the initial obligation in kind “was not impossible” and observed that compulsory enforcement proceedings were underway, that unspecified authorities were “sending requests on the availability of housing” in Syktyvkar and “making claims” to provide the applicant with housing, and that the respondent administration had enforced some thirty similar judgments in 2014. 6.     The judgment of 26   November 2012 remains unenforced to date. (b)     Mr Kotkov (application no.   17236/15) 7.     On 21   June 2013 the Syktyvkar Town Court ordered the administration of Syktyvkar to provide the applicant with housing in the city measuring no less than 11,1 sq.m. in size and complying with the necessary sanitary and technical requirements, having regard to the applicant’s daughter’s right of use in respect of the flat, instead of their flat unlawfully seized and pulled down by the authorities as unsuitable for living. The judgment became enforceable ten days later, and on 11   September 2013 the bailiffs started the enforcement proceedings. 8 .     It transpires from the letters of the Bailiffs’ Service Department of the Komi Republic dated 28   October 2013 and 28   November 2014, sent to the applicant in reply to his several inquiries, that the enforcement proceedings in his case were pending at the material time along with more than 470 other similar judgments against the town administration. 9 .     In 2013 the bailiffs’ service made repeated attempts to secure the enforcement of those judgments by the town administration, including warnings, several compulsory requests ( выставление требования ) for enforcement in respect of each jugment concerned, and requests for information. They put in place unspecified limitations in respect of sixty items of real estate belonging to the debtor and in June 2013 they seized two items of the debtor’s real estate. The bailiffs conducted weekly checks of the status of the enforcement proceedings in housing cases and participated in the quarterly meetings with the administration on the matter. 10 .     In 2014 the enforcement proceedings included mandatory orders for the allocation of flats, the inclusion of additional funds in the budget and the identification of available housing with a view to its allocation in accordance with the waiting list. 11 .     By both letters the bailiffs’ service advised the applicant that the delay in enforcement could be explained, in particular, by the high number of judgments to be enforced, the lack of available flats and insufficient funding allocated for the building or purchase of new flats, as well as the existence of the waiting-list of different categories of persons entitled to social housing. The applicant’s position on the waiting list was 462 in 2013 and 312 in 2014. 12.     It appears that the bailiffs’ repeated requests to the respondent authorities did not result in any action being taken. The judgment of 21   June 2013 in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced to date. (c)     Ms Shumakova (application no.   14023/16) 13.     In 2013 a prosecutor applied to the court on behalf of the applicant and her children, seeking the allocation of a flat to her family on a priority basis, as the applicant’s son suffered from a chronic illness. The defendant authority, the administration of the Koporskoye settlement of the Lomonosov District of the Leningrad Region, acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights. 14.     On 27   March 2013 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region (“the District Court”) allowed the application and ordered the administration of the Koporskoye settlement to provide the applicant and her children with priority housing under a social tenancy agreement. 15.     It appears that on or around 30   May 2013 the judgment became enforceable. On 18   July 2013 enforcement proceedings were started. 16.     As no suitable housing was available, on 3   June 2015 the debtor administration proposed to provide the applicant with a flat smaller than required by the relevant regulations, and pay her for the remaining square metres. On   16 June 2015 the District Court rejected the proposal, in line with the wishes of the applicant, who insisted on being provided with a flat measuring no less than 70 sq.m. in size. 17.     On 23   June 2015 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings, as the debtor lacked assets “the execution could be levied on”. 18.     On 29   June 2015 the applicant asked the District Court to change the manner of execution of the judgment, claiming the market value of the flat. The administration argued in reply that there was one flat complying with the judgment criteria in Koporskoye, and that eviction proceedings were pending against its tenants for failure to pay the charges. 19.     On 12   August 2015 the District Court dismissed her application, finding that the debtor administration had not been inactive and that there was no evidence to suggest that execution of the obligation in kind would be impossible. On 10   September 2015 the Leningrad Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. 20.     On 29   October 2015 the Moscow Regional Court refused leave to have a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant examined by the Presidium. On 9   December 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused leave to have a subsequent cassation appeal examined by the Presidium. 21.     On 1   March 2016 the judgment of 27 March 2013 was enforced. 2.     The Gerasimov pilot judgment and its consequences for similar cases 22.     In the pilot judgment Gerasimov and Others v. Russia (nos.   29920/05 and 10 others, 1   July 2014) the Court concluded that there was a structural problem in the enforcement of judgments imposing obligations in kind on the State authorities, and no effective remedy at domestic level allowing for acceleration of – or compensation for delays in – the enforcement of domestic judgments by which the respondent State authorities were ordered to provide the applicants with housing or comply with other obligations in kind (see Gerasimov and Others , cited above, §§   210-18 and point   11 of the operative part). 23.     The Court further ordered the respondent State to set up, in cooperation with the Committee of Ministers and within one year from the date on which the judgment became final, an effective domestic remedy or combination of remedies which secured adequate and sufficient redress for non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations in kind on the State authorities in line with the Convention principles as established in the Court’s case-law (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§   223-26 and point   12 of the operative part). In so far as the remedy was concerned, the Court found, inter alia , as follows: “224.     There are several avenues by which this goal can be achieved in Russian law and the Court would not impose any specific option, having regard to the respondent State’s discretion to choose the means it will use to comply with the judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos.   39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII). The Russian authorities may obviously choose the most straightforward solution, extending the scope of the Compensation Act to all cases concerning non ‑ enforcement of judgments delivered against the State and the Court welcomes the recent legislative initiatives to that end (see paragraphs 107 ‑ 108 above). The authorities may nonetheless choose to introduce changes to other legal texts that would produce the same effect. Any legislative exercise would benefit from the Constitutional Court’s case-law (see paragraphs 97 and 101), the Supreme Court’s experience that resulted in its draft law of 2008 ( Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§   34 ‑ 37), the Committee of Ministers’ texts adopted under Article 46 of the Convention (see paragraph 113 above) and its more general Recommendations CM/Rec (2004) 6 and CM/Rec (2010) 3 on effective domestic remedies. It would be, for instance, quite appropriate for the authorities to seek, by any means, to combine a compensatory remedy with an acceleratory one (see Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev , cited above, § 35), at least for certain cases involving persistent enforcement delays or requiring special diligence in the enforcement process (see, in particular, paragraphs   152 and 170 above). 225.     In any event, it will remain for the State to ensure, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, that such a remedy or combination of remedies respects both in theory and in practice the requirements of the Convention set out in the Court’s case-law (see Burdov   (no.   2) , cited above, §§ 96 ‑ 100, with further references).” 24 .     The Court further decided to adjourn, for two years from the date the pilot judgment became final, proceedings on all new applications concerning non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations in kind on the State authorities lodged after 1   July 2014, the date of delivery of the pilot judgment (see Gerasimov and Others , cited above, §   229 and point   14 of the operative part). 25.     Consequently, like several applicants in the same position, the applicants in the present cases were informed that their cases would remain adjourned until 1   October 2016 and that the subsequent procedure would be determined in the light of the implementation of the pilot judgment by the Russian authorities. 3.     Introduction of a new domestic compensatory remedy 26 .     On 14   December 2016 Russian Parliament enacted Federal Law no.   450-FZ amending Federal Law no.   68-FZ on Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time (“the new Law” amending “the Compensation Act”). The new Law entered into force on 1   January 2017 (for a summary of its provisions, see paragraphs   31-41 below). 4.     Subsequent developments 27.     By letters dated 10   February 2017 the Registry of the Court informed the applicants in the three present cases and all other applicants in the same position of the new remedy and of the possibility to make use of it within the time-limits set by the new Law (see paragraph   41 below). (a)     Mr Shtolts (application no.   77056/14) and Mr Kotkov (no.   17236/15) 28.     By letters dated 15   March and 5   April 2017 the applicants informed the Court that they would not make use of the new remedy and wished to maintain their applications before the Court. They reiterated that they had complained to the Court in 2014-15, long before the amendments to the Compensation Act were introduced, and argued that they were required to use only the remedies available at the time their applications to the Court were lodged. (b)     Ms Shumakova (application no.   14023/16) 29.     By a letter dated 12   April 2017 the applicant informed the Court that she would make use of the new remedy. She did not update the Court on the subsequent proceedings. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Compensation Act, binding clarifications of the Supreme Court of Russia and domestic case-law examples (a)     Provisions of 2010 Compensation Act 30.     On 30   April 2010 Russian Parliament enacted Federal Law no.   68 ‑ FZ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”). A summary of its provisions, which at the material time concerned monetary claims against the State, may be found in the Court’s decision in Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v.   Russia ((dec.), nos.   27451/09 and 60650/09, §§   15-19, 23   September 2010). (b)     Amendments to the Compensation Act introduced by Federal Law no.   450 ‑ FZ 31 .     As already noted (see paragraph 26 above), on 14   December 2016 the Russian Parliament enacted Federal Law no.   450-FZ amending Federal Law no.   68-FZ on Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time (“the new Law” amending “the Compensation Act”). An explanatory note appended to the draft law contained a reference to Court’s findings in Gerasimov and Others concerning the structural problem of non ‑ enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations in kind and the lack of effective remedies. 32.     The amendments introduced provisions in the Act concerning compensation for violation of the right to enforcement within a reasonable time of a judgment ordering the State to fulfil obligations of a pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary nature. The new Law, signed by the President of the Russian Federation on 19   December 2016, entered into force on 1   January 2017. It extends the scope of the Compensation Act to cases concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary or non-pecuniary nature on various domestic authorities, as follows. 33 .     The Compensation Act entitles a party (“an applicant”) to bring an action seeking compensation for the violation of his or her right to enforcement within a reasonable time of a judgment establishing a debt to be recovered from the State budgets, or a judgment ordering the federal authorities, authorities of the federal entities of the Russian Federation, local authorities, other bodies and organisations endowed with specific State or other public powers, or public and municipal servants to fulfil “other obligations of a pecuniary nature and (or) obligations of a non-pecuniary nature” (section   1(1) of the Compensation Act). 34 .     Such compensation can only be awarded if the alleged violation took place independently of the applicant’s own actions. A breach of the statutory time-limits for examination of the case does not amount per se to a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time or the right to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time (section   1(2) of the Compensation Act). A compensation award is not dependent on the courts establishing fault on the part of the competent authorities (section   1(3) of the Compensation Act). 35 .     Compensation is awarded in monetary form (section   2(1) of the Compensation Act). The amount of compensation awarded should be determined by the courts in accordance with the applicant’s claims, the circumstances of the case, the length of the period during which the violation took place, the significance of its consequences for the applicant, the principles of reasonableness and fairness, and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (section   2(2) of the Compensation Act). 36 .     Section   3 of the Compensation Act sets out the rules of jurisdiction and procedure. It provides, in particular, that a claim for compensation on account of delayed enforcement of a judgment may be lodged prior to the end of the procedure for enforcement of a judgment ordering that compensation be paid from the State budget. A claim may also be lodged at the end of the proceedings or after the compulsory enforcement of a judicial act imposing other obligations of a pecuniary or non-pecuniary nature on the authorities, but not earlier than six months after the expiry of the statutory time-limit for enforcement and not later than six months after the termination of the enforcement proceedings. 37.     In the respective court proceedings the Russian Federation, a federal entity or a municipality is represented by a relevant financial authority and the main administrator of the relevant budget (section   3(9) of the Compensation Act as amended and supplemented by section   1(2)(b) of the new Law). 38 .     A court decision awarding compensation is subject to immediate enforcement (section   4(4) of the Compensation Act). It may be appealed against in accordance with the procedural legislation in force (section   4(5)). 39.     A judgment ordering different authorities to fulfil other obligations of a pecuniary or non-pecuniary nature is executed by the relevant financial body (section   5(2)(2) of the Compensation Act). The costs of compensation awards are included in the federal budget, in the budgets of the federal entities and in local budgets (section   5(3) of the Compensation Act). 40.     Costs related to the implementation of the new Law should be recovered from the funds of the relevant budgets of the Russian Federation allocated for that purpose (section   2 of the new Law). 41 .     All individuals who have complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their right to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time has been violated may claim compensation in the domestic courts under the Compensation Act within six months of the new Law’s entry into force, provided that the Court has not ruled on the admissibility or merits of the complaint (section   3(2) of the new Law). (c)     Binding clarifications by the Supreme Court of Russia 42.     On 29   March 2016 – that is, before the entry into force of the amendments to the Compensation Act on 1   January 2017 – the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia issued Ruling no.   11, clarifying various issues arising in Compensation Act proceedings. It appears that those clarifications apply to compensation proceedings under the amended Compensation Act. 43 .     The Supreme Court reiterated that compensation was not conditional on the authorities’ fault being established. The purpose of compensation proceedings was to compensate the non-pecuniary – but not pecuniary – damage caused to a person. The Compensation Act procedure did not replace compensation for pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions or inaction on the part of the State authorities (§   1 of the Ruling). 44 .     There is no requirement for claimants in such proceedings to be represented or to hold a law degree (§   12). 45 .     A claim for compensation for failure to enforce a judgment within a reasonable time may be lodged within six months from the date of termination of the enforcement. If the judgment remains unenforced, the claim may be lodged not earlier than six months after the expiry of the statutory time-limit for enforcement. That time-limit, in turn, is calculated from the date the writ of execution and other relevant documents are received (§   19). If the claim is lodged before the expiry of the above ‑ mentioned six-month time-limit, it has to be returned to the claimant (§   27). 46.     In preparing a case for examination, the court determines the participants of the case. These include the persons under an obligation to enforce the judgment, as well as the authorities in charge of organising enforcement of the judgment in line with Russian budgetary laws – such as a relevant financial body, a Federal Treasury organ or a body administering the accounts of a regional treasury institution or a municipal treasury institution – or the Federal Bailiffs Service (§   34). Financial bodies representing the interests of public-law entities and, in certain cases, administrators of budgetary funds, should participate in the proceedings (§   35). 47 .     A decision in a compensation case does not preclude a person from lodging another claim for compensation, if it concerns different circumstances, such as for instance a different period of non-enforcement. The parties do not have to prove circumstances established in the earlier set of proceedings. The overall duration of the non-enforcement is taken into account by the court (§   39). 48 .     A violation of a right to enforcement within a reasonable time is in itself proof that non-pecuniary damage was caused; accordingly, the person concerned is under no obligation to prove the damage (§   40). 49 .     Measures taken by authorities are considered sufficient and effective if they are taken with the purpose of enforcing the judgment in good time. The court takes into account, in particular, delays in issuing a writ of execution and transferring it to a competent authority, as well as the claimant’s conduct, such as for instance delays in providing bank details (§   46). A lack of funds is not a valid reason for delayed enforcement (§   48). 50 .     The period of enforcement is calculated from either the date a claimant requests a court to issue and send a writ of execution to a debtor or the date the claimant submits the writ to a debtor (§   55). The period of adjournment and suspension of the enforcement proceedings or enforcement by instalments should be included in the overall length of the enforcement period (§§   55-56). 51 .     In determining the amount of compensation the court takes into account the amount claimed, the circumstances of the case, the length of the period of enforcement, the consequences of the violation and their significance for the claimant, and the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (§   60). 52 .     If compensation is awarded, the operative part of the judgment should specify the amount, the body in charge of execution of the award, as well as the claimant’s bank details (§   62). The court issues a writ of execution and sends it to the debtor authority, irrespective of whether the claimant has made a request to that effect and within one day of delivery of the judgment in administrative proceedings, or five days in commercial proceedings (§   64). 53 .     The judgment is executed within the time-limits set out in Chapter   24.1 of the Budget Code (§   65). (d)     Available examples of the domestic practice under the amended Compensation Act 54 .     In May 2017 Mr K. claimed compensation under the amended Compensation Act for one year and eleven months of non-enforcement of a domestic judgment obliging local authorities to provide him with social housing, still unenforced at the material time. On 12   July 2017 the Krasnodar Regional Court allowed his claim in part in the first instance. Referring to the Court’s case-law and the Supreme Court’s Ruling of 29   March 2016 the domestic court found confirmed that established proof of non-enforcement was the basis for a compensation award. It accordingly rejected the respondent authority’s argument that the non-enforcement had occurred through no fault of the debtor, and the debtor administration’s reference to a lack of resources for execution of the judgment. The court further noted from the Ruling that the Compensation Act procedure was not aimed at compensating any pecuniary damage caused by non-enforcement and did not replace compensation for such damage to a person. The court established the main administrators of the relevant budget and ordered them to pay K.   50,000 Russian roubles (RUB), approximately 722 euros (EUR). 55 .     Ms A. and Ms B. claimed compensation under the amended Compensation Act as the judgment in their favour ordering the authorities to provide them with social housing had remained unenforced for three years and five months by the date of their application to the domestic court. On 3   July 2017 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia in the appeal instance allowed their claim in part and awarded each claimant RUB   200,000 (approximately EUR   2,968). 56 .     Ms S. claimed compensation under the amended Compensation Act as the judicial decision obliging to provide her with a flat had remained unenforced for two years and eleven months by the date of her application to the domestic court. On 17   July 2017 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court by the first-instance decision granted her claim in part and awarded her RUB   95,000 (approximately EUR   1,400). In case of K., by the appeal judgment of 26   June 2017 the same court awarded the claimant RUB   120,000 (approximately EUR   1,750) in the compensation proceedings, as the domestic judgment in her favour had remained unenforced for four years and ten months. 2.     Budget Code 57 .     Chapter   24.1 of the Budget Code sets out the procedure for the execution of judgments delivered against public authorities. In particular, it empowers the Federal Treasury to execute judgments against legal entities funded by the federal budget and the Ministry of Finance to execute judgments against the State. Under Article   242.2 §   6, the judgments must be executed within three months of receipt of the necessary documents. 58 .     A writ of execution issued in respect of a judgment awarding compensation for a violation of the right to enforcement within a reasonable time, together with a copy of the judgment, is sent to the competent authority by the court, irrespective of whether the claimant has made a request to that effect (Article   242.1   §   2). 3.     Code of Administrative Procedure 59.     On 15 September 2015 a new Code of Administrative Procedure (Law no. 21-FZ of 8 March 2015, “the CAP”) entered into force. 60 .     The burden of proof of lawfulness of a decision rests with the respondent authorities. Authorities must prove the facts they refer to in support of their counter-arguments (Article   62   §   2). 61 .     The court may request evidence at the request of parties or of its own initiative (Article   63   §   1; see further Chapter   22, governing complaints about authorities’ inaction, Article   226   §   12). 62.     Once an administrative claim about bailiffs’ decisions, actions or omissions is lodged with the court, it must be examined within ten days (Article   226   §   3). 63 .     The court may summon representatives of the respondent authorities to appear at the hearing. If they fail to appear, a court fine may be applied (Article   226   §   7). 64 .     In examining an administrative claim challenging the decisions, actions or omissions of the authorities, the court verifies the lawfulness of the contested decisions, actions or omissions in the part specified in the administrative claim. The court is not bound by the grounds and arguments contained in the administrative claim and establishes the relevant circumstances in full (Article   226   §   8). The court has to establish whether the rights of the claimant have been violated, whether the time-limits have been respected, and whether the requirements of the normative regulations have been complied with in so far as the authority’s competence, decision making procedure, and grounds for the decision are concerned. The court also verifies whether the content of the contested decision or nature of the disputed action is in accordance with the relevant normative regulations (Article   226   §   9). The claimant has to prove that his or her rights have been violated and that the claim was lodged in good time. The burden of proof is on the authorities as concerns their competence to issue the contested decision or take the disputed action, respect for domestic procedure, the grounds for the decision and compliance with domestic law (Article   226   §   11). 65 .     If an administrative claim is allowed, the court specifies the actions to be taken and sets a time-limit (Article   227   §   3). 66.     Chapter   26 governs proceedings concerning compensation for violation of the right to fair trial or enforcement of a judicial decision within a reasonable time. 67 .     A claim for compensation may be made to a court during the period of enforcement, but not earlier than six months from the statutory time-limit for enforcement (Article   250   §   4). 68.     The court will return an administrative claim to a claimant if it has been lodged by an undue person, or outside the time-limits set for this purpose, or in violation of the procedural rules, or the delay in enforcement of the domestic judgment “clearly evidences” ( с очевидностью свидетельствует ) that there has been no violation of the right to enforcement within a reasonable time. 69 .     An administrative claim for compensation for a violation of a right to have a judgment enforced within a reasonable time is to be lodged with the court which issued the first-instance judgment, irrespective of the place of execution of the judicial award. That court forwards the claim to the competent court for examination within three days of receipt (Article   251   §§   1 and 4). The court examines an administrative claim for compensation within two months of receipt (Article   256). 70 .     In preparing the case for examination the court defines the parties and sets a time-limit for submission of their observations. Persons defined by the court as participants in the administrative proceedings must submit their observations within that time-limit. Failure to do so may result in a court fine being imposed (Article   257   §   1). 71 .     In establishing whether there has been a violation of the right to enforcement within a reasonable time, the court has regard to the following factors: the legal and factual complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, the sufficiency and effectiveness of the measures taken by the authorities to enforce the judgment, and the overall delay in enforcement (Article   258   §   3). 72.     The judgment in a compensation case must contain information about the relevant judicial acts, the reasons to award compensation or to refuse the claim, and an explanation as to the amount of compensation awarded. The operative part must specify the amount of compensation and the authorities liable to pay it. 73 .     A decision awarding compensation is immediately enforceable in accordance with the budgetary legislation of the Russian Federation. 74 .     A court forwards a writ of execution in respect of a court decision awarding compensation for a violation of the right to fair trial within a reasonable time and enforcement of a judicial decision within a reasonable time, together with a copy of the relevant court decision, to the authority in charge of execution of the decision awarding compensation. The court forwards the writ within one day of the date of the judgment and irrespective of whether a claimant has made a request to that effect. The writ must contain the bank details of the claimant (Article   353   §   1 (3.1) of the CAP, introduced by Federal Law no.   303-FZ on 3   July 2016). 4.     Civil Code and binding clarifications by the Supreme Court of Russia (a)     Civil Code provision on court penalty 75 .     Article   308.3 of the Civil Code, introduced on   8   March 2015 and in force as of 1   June 2015, provides that if a debtor fails to execute an obligation, the creditor is entitled to sue him or her in court for failure to comply with the obligation and request compliance, unless the Code, other legislation or the contract provides otherwise, or it is contrary to the nature of the obligation. If the debtor fails to execute that judicial act, the court is entitled, at the creditor’s request, to award a monetary sum as a penalty, to be fixed by the court on the basis of the principles of fairness, proportionality and not profiting from unlawful or unfair conduct (Article   308.3   §   1). The protection by the creditor of his rights in compliance with Article   308.3   §   1 does not relieve the debtor from liability for failure to execute or improper execution of the obligations set out in Chapter   25 of the Code (Article   308.3   §   2). (b)     Clarifications by the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 76 .     Ruling no.   7 of 24   March 2016 of the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia clarified certain issues arising from the application of the above ‑ mentioned provision. In order to incite a debtor to comply with a judicial act making good a violation of a property right and not concerning a deprivation of possessions, the court can apply a monetary amount in the event of a failure to comply with the relevant judicial decision, known as a court penalty. Payment of the court penalty does not put an end to the main (initial) obligation or absolve the debtor from complying with it or from responsibility for its non-enforcement or improper enforcement (§   28 of the Ruling). The provisions on court penalties do not apply to non-enforcement of monetary obligations. As the court penalty under Article   308.3   §   1 can only apply in cases of non-execution of civil-law obligations, it does not apply in disputes of an administrative nature, decided within the administrative proceedings and Chapter   24 of the Code of Commercial Proceedings [1] , or in labour, pension and family disputes arising out of personal non-material relationships between family members or disputes concerning social protection ( связанных с социальной поддержкой ) (§   30).The amount of the court penalty will not be taken into account in determining losses caused by the non-enforcement of the obligation in kind. Such losses are recoverable in addition to the court penalty (§   28 of the Ruling). The court cannot refuse to apply the court penalty in cases where it has allowed a claim for compulsory enforcement of an obligation in kind ( о понуждении к исполнению обязательства в натуре ). The court specifies the amount of the penalty and/or method for its determination. The amount is determined on the basis of the principles of fairness, proportionality and the debtor not profiting from unlawful conduct or acting in bad faith. If a court penalty is applied, enforcement of the judicial decision should be clearly more advantageous ( явно более выгодным ) for the debtor than its non-enforcement (§   32 of the Ruling). Non-enforcement or improper enforcement of an obligation in kind is established by the bailiffs (§   33 of the Ruling). 5.     Code of Administrative Offences 77 .     If a debtor fails to comply with an obligation in kind within the time-limit set by a bailiff after the imposition of an obligation to pay an execution fee, an administrative fine will be imposed, ranging from RUB 10,000 to RUB   25,000 for public officials and between RUB   30,000 and 50,000 for legal entities (Article   17.15   §   1). 6.     Tax Code 78 .     Article   333.19   §   15 of the Tax Code stipulates that the court fee for proceedings concerning compensation for violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time or the right to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time is fixed at RUB   300. C.     Relevant materials of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1.     2017 action report by the Russian authorities concerning the state of execution of the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment 79.     On 10   April 2017 the Russian authorities submitted an action report to the Committee of Ministers concerning the state of execution of the Court’s judgment in Gerasimov and Others . The report, in so far as general measures are concerned, may be summarised as follows. 80 .     As to the compensatory remedy, the federal law amending the 2010 Compensation Act extended the scope of the Compensation Act to cases of delayed enforcement of judicial decisions concerning both pecuniary and non-pecuniary obligations in kind. Under the Budget Code, compensation will be paid from the appropriate budgetary resources, which can be reviewed if the estimated amounts are exceeded. The 2015 Code of Administrative Procedure and several other laws facilitate the procedure for claimants to receive compensation awarded by the courts under the Compensation Act. On 29   March 2016 the Plenary Supreme Court adopted Ruling no.   11, containing binding clarifications for the courts’ examination of compensation claims for delayed enforcement of judicial decisions, in line with the Court’s case-law. 81.     In addition, Article   308.3 of the Civil Code, introduced on 1   June 2015, allows domestic courts to apply a court penalty where debtors, including public authorities, have failed to comply in due time with obligations in kind (see paragraph 75 above). Further, in November 2015 the Plenary Supreme Court adopted Ruling no. 50 streamlining the courts’ practice on the examination of complaints concerning bailiffs’ actions or inaction. Furthermore, the 2015 Code of Administrative Procedure provides for a substantially improved procedure for complaining about the action or inaction of State authorities, including bailiffs (see paragraphs 60-64 above). Claims in such cases should be examined within ten days of introduction; the burden of proof lies with the respondent; the court enjoys a wide range of powers enabling it, inter alia , to go beyond the scope of the claim to obtain additional information, fine the respondent for failure to appear or to produce evidence or order specific preventive or remedial measures. 82.     As regards measures addressing the origin of the violations, the authorities submitted detailed information concerning the measures taken by, inter alia , the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry for Emergency Situations, the Federal Bailiffs Service, the State Real Estate Register, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office, as well as various regional and municipal authorities. The number of unexecuted judicial decisions concerning obligations in kind delivered between January   2014 and July   2016 decreased. 83 .     More specifically, as regards provision of housing, in February 2017 the special-purpose federal programme aimed at providing housing to those entitled to it by law, via subsidies to purchase housing or the allocation of flats, was extended until 2020 (at which point over 215,000 families will have been provided with housing). Over RUB 663 billion (over EUR   11   billion at the exchange rate of 12 April 2017) was spent on this programme between 2011 and 2015. As a result of the measures undertaken by the Ministry of Defence in cooperation with other authorities, the number of unenforced judicial decisions for the provision of housing to military personnel dropped by over 75% between January 2013 and July 2016. The number of such decisions against the Ministry of the Interior dropped during the same period by almost 100%. The same rate of decrease was recorded for the similar judicial decisions against the Ministry for Emergency Situations between 2014 and 2016. As regards the provision of housing to orphans and children left without parental care, additional budgetary resources were allocated for this purpose. The enforcement of judicial decisions of this kind was also put under the regular control of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Federal Bailiffs Service. Lastly, as a result of the real estate registration reform aimed principally at improving the functioning of the State real estate registering body, in 2015, 99% of all judicial decisions against that body were enforced. 2.     The Committee of Ministers’ latest assessment of the execution of the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment 84 .     The most recent Decision by the Committee of Ministers No.   CM/Del/Dec(2017)1288/H46-25 of 7   June 2017 reads as follows: “The Deputies [...] 3.     welcomed the setting up of both compensatory and acceleratory domestic remedies which appear prima facie to be effective, noted with interest the other improved procedures and, in the light of this, decided to close their examination concerning the adoption of remedies; 4.     further welcomed the important progress achieved in addressing and removing the origin of the violations established by the European Court, in particular as regards the enforcement of judicial decisions awarding housing to military servicemen; in the light of this, decided to close their examination of this aspect, with the exception of the outstanding question indicated below; 5.     invited the authorities to provide information on the practical impact of the measures taken to prevent delays in the enforcement of judicial decisions concerning other categories of social housing; 6.     in the light of the substantial progress achieved, decided to pursue their supervision of the two outstanding issues (the settlement of the remaining applications communicated by the Court and the practical impact of the measures taken for the execution of judicial decisions concerning the remaining categories of social housing) under the standard procedure.” COMPLAINTS 85.     The applicants complained under Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention thereto about the non-enforcement of judgments in their favour. They further complained under Article   13 of the Convention of a lack of a domestic remedy in that regard. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 86.     Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them pursuant to Rule   42   §   1 of the Rules of Court. B.     Complaint about non-enforcement of domestic judgments 87.     The applicants complained under Article   6 and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of domestic judgments in their favour. 88.     The Court should first determine whether, as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention, the applicants have exhausted the domestic remedies which were available to them, in the light of, inter alia , the principles stated in Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment and the entry into force of the amendments to the Compensation Act. The relevant parts of Article   35 of the Convention provide as follows: “1.     The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.” 1.     General principles (a)     Exhaustion of domestic remedies 89.     Acc