CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s799E5083 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.3pt } .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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s51471393 { width:3.38%; 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 } .s3B665B8 { width:8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2B493B85 { width:13.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEF94CF7A { width:13.98%; 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 } .s542796CB { width:11.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD0F809CA { width:16.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDFC06D78 { width:33.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s658DF961 { width:3.38%; 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 } .sEE585281 { width:8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDDFD271C { width:13.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB704577A { width:13.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A80EB62 { width:11.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE903494E { width:16.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s432BD2F5 { width:33.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF YUSHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 2403/06 and 7 others - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   8 February 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yushin 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 18 January 2018, 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 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. 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, 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.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     The Court notes that the applicants did not submit any claims for just satisfaction in due time. It therefore does not find it necessary to make any award. At the same time it observes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable. 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 admissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention 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’ complaint 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 February 2018, 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     2403/06 03/11/2005 Nikolay Ivanovich Yushin 01/09/1934 Arsenyevsk Town Court of the Primorye Region, 20/07/2000   28/08/2000   pending More than 17 years and 1   day   “To oblige the local council ... within a year to carry out works for evacuation of rain water and prevention of flooding of the land plot of [the applicant]”     44360/07 18/09/2007 Household Roman Vladimirovich Gunin 25/09/1980 Irina Vasilyevna Gunina 17/08/1945   The Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Oktyabrskiy District of Ivanovo, 30/05/2006   16/11/2006   27/10/2009 2 years and 11 months and 12   days   “... to oblige MPZhKh of Ivanovo to replace the lining and to plaster the ... room, to reinforce and to plaster the wall between the kitchen and toilet in apartment 162 building 47, prospect Lenina... to order MPZhKh of Ivanovo to pay [the applicants] 500 Russian roubles of non-pecuniary damage   ...”       34128/09 04/06/2009 Luiza Akhtyamovna Bakhtizina 02/06/1939 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 05/09/1995   05/05/1998   pending More than 19 years and 3   months and 24 days   to perform repair works in the applicant’s apartment     56597/12 13/08/2012 (5 applicants) Household Yelena Borisovna Aleshina 20/08/1976 Boris Nikolayevich Aleshin 14/09/2002 Dmitriy Nikolayevich Aleshin 07/01/1999 Ilya Nikolayevich Aleshin 06/07/1997 Anastasiya Nikolayevna Aleshina 02/07/2008   Yakutsk Town Court, 12/04/2006   22/04/2006   pending More than 11 years and 4   months and 7 days   “...the Ministry of Youth Policy and ... ZhSK ‘Molodezhnye zhilye kompleksy’ should put [the applicants] on the list of the subprogramme ‘Provision of housing for young families’ ...”       63752/12 18/09/2012 Pavel Valeryevich Stsepuro 08/07/1975 Ustin Valeryevich Stsepuro 22/05/1977   Yakutsk Town Court, 21/11/2005   26/12/2005   24/07/2015 9 years and 7 months and 2   days   to provide with housing     78214/13 14/11/2013 Sergey Ivanovich Davydov-Orlov 22/11/1960 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tomsk, 09/11/2012   14/05/2013   pending More than 4 years and 3   months and 15 days   “... the Administration of Tomsk to provide [the applicant] with [residential room] after his eviction from [previous address] ... ”     2844/14 28/12/2013 Lyudmila Grigoryevna Firsova 30/10/1946 Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow, 22/04/2011   20/02/2012   pending More than 5 years and 6   months and 9 days   “... to return a metallic tent [belonging to the applicant] to its previous location”     40484/14 12/05/2014 Arina Nikolayevna Pulkina 22/12/1969 Kondopoga Town Court of the Republic of Karelia, 03/10/2012   25/01/2013   pending More than 4 years and 7   months and 4 days   “... the Administration of Kondopoga to carry out reparation works in the [applicant’s] block of flats, in particular of the roof, isolation, water supply, and sewerage system, by 01/07/2013 ... ”