CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s50EED4B4 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC63B4249 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s39877440 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 2 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 23211/04 Yuriy Valentinovich SHIKUNOV against Russia lodged on 24 May 2004 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Yuriy Valentinovich Shikunov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Krasnoarmeysk, Moscow Region. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant sued Federal State Unitary Enterprise NII “Geodeziya” ( ФГУП НИИ «Геодезия ») to obtain housing. On 8   October 2002 the Pushkinskiy Town Court of Moscow Region ordered the enterprise to provide the applicant with a flat. The judgment entered into force on 18   October 2002. At a certain point the enterprise was reorganised and became a treasury enterprise (« казенное предприятие »). On 10   February 2006 the same court changed the obligation in kind for a monetary one and ordered the enterprise to pay the applicant 37,674 euros (EUR). The decision entered in to force on 28   June 2006. By decisions of the same court listed in the Appendix the award was index-linked. The applicant was paid EUR 43,747 euros on 23   December 2009 and EUR 6,615 on 1   February 2010. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about delays in enforcement of the court awards in his favour.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Are the debts owed by Federal State Unitary Enterprise NII “Geodeziya” ( ФГУП НИИ «Геодезия ») and Federal Treasury Enterprise NII “Geodeziya” ( ФКП НИИ «Геодезия ») to the applicant imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and, if so, to what extent? 2.     Have the final judgments in the applicant’s favour been enforced fully and in a timely manner? If not, has this violated the applicant’s right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article   1   of Protocol   No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia , nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, 9 October 2014)? 3.     If those debts are not imputable to the State (see Question 1 above), did the State authorities diligently assist the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour (see Kunashko v. Russia , no.   36337/03, §§   38 ‑ 49, 17 December 2009, with further references)?   No. Date of judgment Date of entry into force Amount of award in euros (EUR) 1. 07/10/2007 17/10/2007 2,907 2. 08/11/2007 18/11/2007 7,369 3. 18/11/2008 28/11/2008 17,523 4. 29/10/2009 28/11/2008 6,402 5. 13/05/2010 20/07/2010 971