CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s10554627 { height:67.1pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s8A022E7B { height:127.95pt } .sC4A1E089 { height:70.15pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41792/05 Dmitriy Vladimirovich PEROV and Viktoriya Vasilyevna PEROVA against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   March 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the allegedly lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour are inadmissible. According to the Court’s consistent position, the reasonableness of a delay in the enforcement of a final judgment is to be determined having regard, in particular, to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant’s own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, the amount and the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia , no. 22000/03, § 31, 15   February 2007). Admittedly, enforcement of a judgment concerning allocation of a flat or performance of certain actions, such as allocation of a land plot or reinstatement complicated by the liquidation of an employer, may take a longer time than payment of a sum of money (see, for instance, Shilov and Baykova v. Russia , no. 703/02, §§ 21-26, 29 June 2006). The periods of enforcement in the applicants’ cases, save for Mr   Merkushev in application no. 68090/14 (see appended table below) lasted for no more than just over twelve months which do not appear so long as to impair the essence of the applicants’ right to a court or represent a disproportionate interference with their property rights (see, for similar reasoning, Zheleznyakov and Zheleznyakova v. Russia (dec.), no. 3180/03, 15 March 2007). As regards Mr Merkushev (application no. 68090/14), this is the second time the Court has to examine the situation with the alleged non-enforcement of one and the same judgment secured by the applicant on 20   November 2000. In the previous case brought by the applicant to the Court, it dismissed his complaint of the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 20 November 2000 as manifestly ill-founded, having concluded as follows: “To date the enforcement has lasted for over seven years. But it is the applicant who is responsible for the bulk of this period. The State first offered him a flat as early as three months after the judgment, but he refused this and several subsequent offers. The applicant explains his refusal with the small size of the flat, but the Court notes that the judgment did not specify the size (it only required the flat to meet statutory norms), and the applicant’s interpretation of these norms has not been officially confirmed.” (see Merkushev v. Russia (dec.), no. 26761/03, 16 October 2008). Turning to the circumstances of the present application no. 68090/14 and examining the period of the alleged non-enforcement of the judgment of 20   November 2000 after its previous decision on 16 October 2008, the Court still finds that the continued period of the non-enforcement is attributed entirely to the applicant’s behaviour. He continues to refuse the flats proposed to him by the authorities, while making no attempt to bring the alleged inconsistencies between the proposals and the judgment award to the attention of the domestic authorities. The Court therefore finds that the applicants’ complaints of delays in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of the judgments. The Court reiterates that Article 13 applies only where a person has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right. Having regard to its finding above under Article 6 § 1 the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that the applicants had no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Finally, the applicants in applications nos. 41792/05 and 40419/07 also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the two applications 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do 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 applications nos. 41792/05 and 40419/07 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 29 March 2018.   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 1. 41792/05 30/10/2005 Household   Dmitriy Vladimirovich Perov 09/12/1963 Viktoriya Vasilyevna Perova 31/08/1963     Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, 24/03/2004   20/04/2004   23/04/2004 3 day(s)   "[the City Council] to resettle [the applicants] into a flat in Novatorov str., ... to transfer title to the flat to [the first applicant] ... to register family members in it" 2. 38502/07 03/07/2007 Anton Valentinovich Fedorov 02/02/1975 Zarbeyev Rustem Abdullovich St Petersburg Svertlovskiy Garrison Military Court, 16/02/2007   16/02/2007   29/10/2007 7 month(s) and 28 day(s) [the military unit] to provide the applicant and members of his family with a flat 3. 40419/07 16/08/2007 Leonid Grigoryevich Shevchuk 19/04/1954     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 12/01/2005   Norilsk Town Court, 11/08/2005   Norilsk Town Court, 19/04/2006   Norilsk Town Court, 13/11/2006   Norilsk Town Court, 28/05/2008 12/01/2005     10/10/2005     10/11/2006     24/11/2006     11/08/2008 01/04/2005 2 month(s) and 21 day(s)   19/10/2006 1 year(s) and 10 day(s)   25/01/2007 2 month(s) and 16 day(s)   19/03/2007 3 month(s) and 24 day(s)   03/12/2008 3 month(s) and 23 day(s) to conduct medical examination and to determine the level of applicant’s disability 4. 40513/08 25/07/2008 Olga Aleksandrovna Smirnova 09/03/1973     Chukhlomskiy District Court of the Kostroma Region, 14/12/2007     Chukhlomskiy District Court of the Kostroma Region, 17/09/2008 06/02/2008         27/09/2008   01/10/2008 7 month(s) and 26 day(s)       05/12/2008 2 month(s) and 9 day(s)   1) " ... [the District Leskhoz] to reinstate [the applicant] in her job ... and to pay [her the sums due] ..."   2) " ... [the District Leskhoz] to pay [to the applicant the sums due] ..." 5. 48038/08 30/08/2008 Mariya Gamzatovna Kurbanova 13/05/1958     Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, 16/04/2008, in light of the judgment of 27/06/2008 16/04/2008   27/06/2008 2 month(s) and 12 day(s)   The Administration of the town of Buynaksk to reinstate the applicant in the position of the school director 6. 13277/14 03/03/2014 Nikolay Vasilyevich Goncharov 16/12/1949     Ostrogozhskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region, 08/02/2013   15/03/2013   17/01/2014 10 month(s) and 3 day(s)   " ...the Administration of the Ostrogozhsky Municipal District to register a land plot situated in Ostrogozhsk, Ordzhonikidze str., 162 within ten months from the date the present judgment enters into force ... " 7. 68090/14 23/06/2014 Aleksey Nikolayevich Merkushev 28/06/1959     Military Court of the Leningrad Circuit, 20/11/2000   16/10/2008   pending More than 8 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 22 day(s)   " ... [the Commander of the military unit] to ... provide [the applicant] with housing ... "