CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 45215/14 Leonid Fedorovich SURMAN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   March 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 31   May 2014, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Domashenko, a lawyer practising in Kaliningrad. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of 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 The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments in his favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. These complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which in relevant parts 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 applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 5   November 2001 by which the Guryevskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region ordered the military authorities to provide him with housing. The Government submitted documents showing that at least as of February 2013 the applicant could no longer claim enforcement of the judgment as he had been stripped of the right to receive housing from the State since, in 2004, he had bought housing of his own. This fact had been confirmed in a court judgment of 17 October 2013. The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that the applicant did not appeal against the latter judgment. It thus follows that the State’s obligation to enforce the judgment of 5   November 2001 definitely ceased to exist with the amendment of that judgment on 17 October 2013. The applicant, however, lodged his application with the Court on 31 May 2014, that is more than six months after the judgment of 5   November 2001 lost its binding force. The application is therefore belated. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 26 March 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application 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) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non ‑ enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Domestic order 45215/14 31/05/2014 Leonid Fedorovich SURMAN 25/03/1953 Domashenko Dmitriy Mikhaylovich Kaliningrad Guryevskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region, 05/11/2001   24/07/2002   11/02/2013 10 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 19   day(s)   "...commander of Nizhniy Novgorod Military university ... to provide [the applicant] with housing... [in the town of Kustov in Nizhniy Novgorod Region]", as interpreted by the judgment of 17/10/2013 of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad