CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s114AEA21 { font-size:9pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .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 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF BOKAREVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7895/21 and 14 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bokareva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2024, 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 Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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 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. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL N o .   1 7.     The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Admissibility 8.     The Court must firstly ascertain whether the applicants maintain their victim status, regard being had to the domestic compensation proceedings instituted by them in connection with the alleged non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. It therefore reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her victim status if national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-93, ECHR   2006-V). 9.     The Court notes that the relevant claims brought by Ms   Bokareva, Mr   Belov and Mr   Pronichev (applications nos. 7895/21, 7938/21, and   41985/21, respectively) were dismissed by the domestic courts. Accordingly, the Court finds it established that at no time did the domestic authorities acknowledge a breach of the Convention in respect of the applicants and that the latter can still claim to be the victims of the violation alleged. 10.     As to the remainder of the applications, the Court notes that, even though the domestic authorities expressly acknowledged that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicants monetary compensation in that respect, it cannot accept that the amount awarded to the applicants on account of the violation of their rights is sufficient or comparable to what it generally awards in similar Russian cases. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicants may still claim to be the victims of the violation alleged. 11.     The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 12.     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). 13.     Having regard to the nature of the judicial awards in the applicants’ favour (see the appended table), 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. 14.     In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos.   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. 15.     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 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. 16.     These complaints therefore disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 17.     The applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. Having examined all the material before it, and given the findings above, the Court concludes that there is   no need to examine   separately additional complaints raised by the applicant under Article 13 of the Convention   (see   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania   [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014;   Aleksandr   Andreyev v. Russia , no. 2281/06, §   71, 23   February 2016). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§ 187-200), the Court considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the applicant in application no.   7895/21 (compare Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   44363/14 and 2   others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos.   26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15   September 2022). It also finds it reasonable to award to the remaining applicants the sums indicated in the appended table. 19.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the 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 admissible and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints raised under Article 13 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions; 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; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 7895/21; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of 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’s name Year 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 (in euros) Compensation proceedings Name of the court Date of the judgment Аward Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     7895/21 24/12/2020 Valentina Ivanovna BOKAREVA 1948     Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk, 05/11/2013   05/11/2013   Pending as of 16/09/2022, 8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 12 day(s) "... the Administration of Smolensk is to perform capital repairs in the residential building ..." The courts ruled that the applicant was not eligible to apply for compensation in connection with the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 25/08/2020. The court considered that only applicants whose complaints were pending before the Court were entitled to such compensation. The finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.     7938/21 14/01/2021 Aleksey Dmitriyevich BELOV 1957     Promyshlennyy District Court of Smolensk, 13/11/2013   13/11/2013   Pending as of 16/09/2022 8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 4 day(s) the Administration of Smolensk is to perform capital repairs in the residential building The domestic courts considered that the Compensation Act did not apply to the applicant’s situation, the judgment in his favour having been delivered prior to the enactment of the said legislation. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 25/08/2020 6,000     16337/21 01/03/2021 Olesya Konstantinovna BAUROVA 1985     Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/11/2016   07/11/2016   Pending on the date when the application was brought to the Court More than 5   year(s)   Administration of Severodvinsk to provide the applicant ... with a flat ... . Award for the period 07/11/2016 - 02/10/2018: On 02/10/2018 Arkhangelsk Regional Court awarded the applicant RUB 60,000 for the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour. Award for the period 03/10/2018 - 07/02/2020 (1 year, 4 months and 2 days).   On 07/02/2020 the first-instance court awarded the applicant RUB 25,000 for the authorities’ continued failure to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour (upheld on appeal, final – Supreme Court decided on 12/02/2021). Total amount of award for the period 07/11/2016 – 07/02/2020: RUB 85,000 4,100     23444/21 15/04/2021 Kasandra Mikhaylovna KONDRATYEVA 1998 Barashkina Kristina Viktorovna   Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Barnaul of Altai Region, 31/05/2018   05/09/2018   Pending as of 16/09/2022, 4 year(s) and 12 day(s)   The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 30/03/2020 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 40,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 15/03/2021. 3,500     23448/21 15/04/2021 Yevgeniy Viktorovich BLINOV 1994 Sannikova Diana Mikhaylovna Moscow Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Barnaul of Altai Region, 11/05/2017   09/07/2017   Pending as of 16/09/2022, 5 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 8 day(s)   The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 04/06/2020 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 55,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 18/02/2021. 5,400     23666/21 15/04/2021 Aleksandra Aleksandrovna FARENYUK 1999 Sannikova Diana Mikhaylovna Moscow Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Barnaul, 12/07/2018   03/09/2018   Pending as of 16/09/2022, 4 year(s) and 14 day(s)   The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 11/06/2020 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 40,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 20/02/2021. 3,500     41985/21 30/07/2021 Sergey Semenovich PRONICHEV 1993     Zhukovskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region, 01/03/2018   31/10/2018   07/09/2020 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)   The administration of [the municipality] is to provide [the applicant] with social housing ... . The applicant’s compensation claim was dismissed. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 29/06/2021 1,500     45359/21 28/08/2021 Alevtina Yefremovna KUNYSHEVA 1941 Vologin Aleksey Borisovich Volsk Saratov Regional Court, 02/04/2019   21/05/2019   Pending as of 16/09/2022, 3 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 27 day(s)   [the municipal administration] is to provide [the applicant] with social housing ... . On 19/06/2020 the Saratov Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 15,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 13/07/2021. 2,800     61604/21 25/11/2021 Darya Olegovna MINSKAYA 1993 Sannikova Diana Mikhaylovna Moscow Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Barnaul, 07/06/2018   13/07/2018   Pending as of 16/09/2022 4 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 4 day(s)   The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 18/11/2020 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 60,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 24/08/2021. 4,200   249/22 25/11/2021 Vera Nikolayevna SHESTAKOVA 1995 Sannikova Diana Mikhaylovna Moscow Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Barnaul, 13/11/2018   13/11/2018   Pending as of 16/09/2022 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 4 day(s)   The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 21/09/2020 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 54,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 24/08/2021. 2,800   4887/22 22/12/2021 Anastasiya Olegovna CHILIKINA 1994     Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Barnaul, 25/05/2017   12/01/2018   Pending as of 16/09/2022 4 year(s) and 8   month(s) and 5 day(s)   The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 28/09/2020 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 70,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 12/10/2021. 4,300   16099/22 04/03/2022 Alena Sergeyevna SKOBELEVA 1995 Nikolayev Aleksandr Alekseyevich Moscow Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Barnaul, 17/04/2018   24/05/2018   Pending as of 16/09/2022 5 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 10 day(s)   The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 22/04/2021 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 71,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 31/01/2022. 3,800   16275/22 04/03/2022 Yuliya Mikhaylovna CHASHCHEVAYA 1989 Sannikova Diana Mikhaylovna Moscow Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Barnaul, 12/01/2017   18/02/2017   Pending as of 16/09/2022 5 year(s) and 7   month(s) The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 18/05/2021 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded her RUB 112,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 31/01/2022. 4,900   31540/22 09/06/2022 Vitality Vasilyevich FERTIKH 1994 Sannikova Diana Mikhaylovna Moscow Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Barnaul, 09/08/2019   17/09/2019   Pending as of 16/09/2022 3 year(s) The regional housing department is to provide the applicant with social housing ... in Barnaul On 25/05/2021 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded him RUB 47,000 for non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 12/04/2022. 2,600   46436/22 16/09/2022 Viktor Anatolyevich NIKOLAYEV 1973     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk 19/07/2012   19/07/2012   Pending as of 16/09/2022 10 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s)   The mayor’s office of Arkhangelsk is to prove the [applicant’s family] with a flat On 28/06/2021 Arkhangelsk Regional Court, granted the applicant’s compensation claims in part and awarded him RUB 15,000. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court on 16/05/2022. 5,900     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.