CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 janvier 2019

.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 } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sECE322C2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.65pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s2B230C99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC2F16AEA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s593965FC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sED4CC669 { height:176.7pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s63D38A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 28 January 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61463/14 Rezida Rishatovna SAMIGULLINA and Roza Rishatovna SAMIGULLINA against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are six Russian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the appendix. The applicant in case no.   23558/18 is represented by Ms A.A. Selikhanova, lawyer practicing in Moscow. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants obtained final court decisions in their favour listed in the appendix, ordering State authorities to perform various obligations in kind. The court decisions were not promptly enforced. The applicants sought compensation for lengthy non-enforcement under the amended Compensation Act. The respective information about the judgments in the applicants’ favour and their enforcement, courts decisions concerning the compensation awards and respective sums are indicated in the appended table. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Relevant provisions of the Federal Law No.   450-FZ amending the Compensation Act of 2010, in force as of 1   January 2017 and extending the scope of the Compensation Act to cases of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments ordering the domestic authorities to fulfil various obligations in kind are summarised in Shtolts and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos.   77056/14 and 2   others, §§   31 ‑ 41, 30   January 2018. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about the lengthy non ‑ enforcement of final court judgments in their favour imposing obligations in kind on State authorities. 2.     The applicants complain in substance under Article   13 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings under the Compensation Act did not provide them with an adequate redress for late enforcement and therefore the remedy was not effective in their cases. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the court judgments in the applicants’ favour in cases nos.   61463/14, 31103/16 and 44742/18 been fully enforced? If so, on which dates? 2.     In respect of all applicants, have there been violations of Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the lengthy non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of the final judgments in their favour? 3.     In respect of all applications , having regard to the proceedings instituted by the applicants under the Law no. 68-FZ of 30 April 2010, “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”) as amended by Federal Law No.   450-FZ of 19   December 2016, did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy for the lengthy non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of the final judgments in their favour, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? In respect of application no.   35177/17 ( Burova ), and with reference to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of the rent expenses, was the applicant able to obtain appropriate redress of the alleged violation of her rights as a result of the non-enforcement, in those proceedings solely or taken in conjunction with the Compensation Act proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v.   Malta, no.   26771/07, §   53, 5   April 2011, and Apap Bologna v.   Malta , no. 46931/12, §   43, 30   August 2016, with further references and, in so far as relevant, Ilyushkin and Others v. Russia , nos. 5734/08 and   28   others, §   65, 17 April 2012)? APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Final domestic decision: Domestic court Date of the judicial award Final on Domestic award Enforcement status Compensation Act Proceedings: Domestic court Dates of the judgments Compensation Act proceedings: Relevant details Other relevant information and proceedings   61463/14 27/08/2014 Rezida Rishatovna SAMIGULLINA 01/01/1972 Kazan Russian   Roza Rishatovna SAMIGULLINA 25/12/1966 Kazan Russian   Kirovskiy District Court of Kazan 22/02/2013, 25/04/2013(additional decision)   Final : 24/06/2013 (both decisions)   “... the local authorities to arrange a road drainage system close to the applicant’s plot of land and house”   Not enforced to date Enforcement delay : >5 years   Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 18/07/17 17/10/17 (appeal instance) upheld 18/12/17, 1 st cassation appeal rejected   Supreme Court of Russia: 16/03/18, 2 nd cassation appeal rejected Claim granted in part . The court awarded 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to each applicant (that is, approximately 146 euros (EUR) for both applicants) for 3   years and 9 months of pending non-enforcement on the date of lodging of their action with the domestic courts. 1)     Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 28/10/2013, as clarified on 30/01/2014 Claims for compensation of damage (reimbursement of works performed by the applicants themselves) granted in part, the amount awarded (RUB   121,450) paid shortly thereafter, on an unspecified date. 2)     Supreme Court of Tatarstan, claims under the Compensation Act 2010 (prior to the 2016 amendments) returned to the applicants as incompatible ratione materiae: 10/10/2014, 2 nd cassation appeal refused. 3)     Supreme Court of Tatarstan, 26/01/2015 (appeal decision), refusal to modify the way of execution; 09/04/2015, 1 st cassation appeal refused. 4)     Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan 25/06/2015 (first-instance decision, final): the bailiffs’ inaction on 10/03/2015 -01/06/2015 declared unlawful. 5)     Supreme Court of Tatarstan 27/09/2016 (appeal judgment). The bailiffs’ certain actions (site inspection by an expert) declared unlawful. 6)     Kirovskiy District Court of Kazan, 15/05/2018 (first-instance decision): execution adjourned until 10/10/2018 pursuant to the debtor’s request; 7)     Kirovskiy District Court of Kazan, 18/05/2018 (+ an additional decision of 28/08/2018), appeal pending. Complaint against the authorities rejected.   8)     Kirovskiy District Court of Kazan, 27/08/2018, appeal pending. The applicants’ complaints about the bailiffs’ failure to perform a due control over the enforcement rejected as unfounded.   47492/15 31/08/2015 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich LADOSHKIN 04/05/1959 Gusev Russian   Kaliningrad Garrison Military Court 15/10/2007 26/10/2007   “... The commander of the military unit no.93809 ... to provide [the applicant] with housing. under the applicable norms ... and dismiss him from military service”     Enforced in 2015: In 2015 the applicant accepted to receive a housing subsidy instead of a flat. . 24/02/2015, housing subsidy allocated 03/03/2015 the amount transferred to the applicant’s banking account, 25/04/2015 dismissed from military service     Baltic Fleet Military Court 22/06/2017 28/09/2017 (appeal instance) upheld   05/02/2018, 1 st cassation appeal refused   Supreme Court of Russia: 03/05/2018, 2 nd cassation appeal rejected   Compensation refused . The courts established that the enforcement lasted for seven years, but rejected the claim for compensation having found that the applicant was responsible for the delay of 7   years, as -     he did not ask for or submitted the writ of execution; -     the debtor military unit was re-organised by the did not bring the legal succession proceedings, -     he didn’t agree to accept larger apartments proposed to him by another military unit on at least 10 occasions in 2012-2014 as he lacked funds to pay the extra square metres; -     he had not complain about the length of enforcement during the enforcement proceedings; -     the priority order was to be respected; -     he accepted enforcement in the form not stipulated in the final judgment (i.e. the amount of money instead of a flat). At some point the military unit was reorganised.   1)     On 29/12/2009 the housing commission of the military unit no.   51280A allocated a flat of 50.6 sq.m. to his family of two but subsequently revoked the offer (refused to “approve of the lists”), as the applicant’s family was entitled to a maximum of 45 sq.m. per family. He challenged the refusal. Kaliningrad District Court, 06/04/2010, the applicant’s complaint about the refusal rejected as unfounded. It appears that the decision was not appealed against.   2)     Baltic Fleet Military Court, 01/07/2014 (appeal decision), The applicant’s grandchild included in the list of family members entitled to housing.   31103/16 23/05/2016 Vyacheslav Anatolyevich NIKOLAYEV 27/05/1971 Kaluga Russian   Kaluga Regional Court 06/11/2014 (appeal decision, entered into force on the same date)   “the Housing Department of Kaluga to include the applicant’s [premises] at a [specific address] in the list of objects in respect of which a major overhaul was to be performed at the expense of the Kaluga town budget”   Not enforced by 23/03/17 , according to the domestic courts’ decisions in the Compensation Act proceedings Kaluga Regional Court 02/05/2017 02/08/2017 (appeal instance) upheld   29/09/2017, 1 st cassation appeal rejected   Supreme Court of Russia: 25/12/2017, 2 nd cassation appeal rejected     Compensation refused . The courts noted that the judgment had not been enforced and that, in particular, on 23/03/2017 the debtor authority had been fined for a failure to comply with it. The courts found, with reference to the 2015   proceedings against the bailiffs, that the authorities had acted lawfully and, in particular, the bailiffs had not been inactive, and their actions had been “sufficient and effective”. In 2015-2017 bailiffs on eight occasions had taken measures to obtain enforcement of the judgment, in particular, “issued warnings” and “compiled acts” within the enforcement proceedings. Proceedings against the bailiffs Kaluzhskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region 14/05/2015 Kaluga Regional Court 12/08/2015 (appeal) 15/10/2015, 1 st cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia 10/02/2016, 2 nd cassation appeal rejected The courts dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded.   Enforcement proceedings, details On 3 March 2016 the local authorities amended the list of objects subject to major overhaul” to include “preparation of design-and-estimate documentation” in respect of the premises at the applicant’s address.   35177/17 26/04/2017 Svetlana Anatolyevna BUROVA 17/05/1972 Yaroslavl Russian   Yaroslavl Regional Court 18/02/2014 (appeal decision, entered into force on the same date)   “... the Town Council of Yaroslavl to provide [the applicant] with comfortable housing for a family of four under a social tenancy agreement”   Enforced on 14/02/2017 (Social tenancy agreement signed in respect of a flat allocated in December 2016) Yaroslavl Regional Court: 10/04/2017 27/06/2017 (appeal instance) upheld 24/07/2017, 1 st cassation appeal rejected   Supreme Court of Russia: 28/09/2017, 2 nd cassation appeal rejected     Compensation refused . The courts calculated the non ‑ enforcement period as of 05/04/2017, date of the beginning of the enforcement proceedings, and found that the non-enforcement lasted for 2   years 5   months and 11 days. They considered that the delay was not excessive. The authorities’ actions were “sufficient and effective”. They took necessary measures to enforce the judgment but it could not be enforced, as there was no available housing. Further, many similar enforcement proceedings concerning provision of housing to other individuals were pending against the town authorities. During the enforcement period, in April 2016 one offer was made to the applicant but she refused it “for an objective reason”, as “there were doubts as to whether the flat was suitable for living”. The bailiffs were not inactive and took steps to enforce the judgment (issued warnings, extended the time-limits for enforcement). The applicant’s housing situation In 2010 the applicant’s housing was declared dilapidated, unsuitable for living.   Enforcement proceedings, details After delivery of the judgment of 18/02/2014 in her favour, on 27/02/2014 a writ of execution was sent to the applicant but on 19/03/2014 returned to the first ‑ instance court. On 19/08/2014 the applicant received the writ of execution. On 05/09/2014 the enforcement proceedings started.   Claim for damages The applicant submits that due to the continued non-enforcement she had to loan a flat, as her housing was unsuitable for living. She lodged a court action claiming damages in the amount of RUB 110   000 in total for the period 15/09/2014 -15/08/2015 in reimbursement of her rent expenses.   Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl, 02/03/2016, claims rejected; Yaroslavl Regional Court, 16/06/2016, the refusal upheld on appeal; 15/06/2016, 1 st cassation appeal rejected; Supreme Court of Russia, 29/11/16, 2 nd cassation appeal rejected.   The courts refused to reimburse the loan payments, having found no causal link between the applicant’s rent expenses and the non-enforcement. According to the courts, the applicant did not prove that she could not live in the dilapidated housing, or that the expenses were incurred as a result of the authorities’ fault or unlawful action.   23558/18 07/05/2018 Viktoriya Fedorovna POKLAD 26/08/1985 Rostov-na-Donu Russian   Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-na-Donu 24/10/2014 16/02/2015 (final) “... the town administration to provide [the applicant] with appropriate housing under a specialised housing agreement ...”   Enforced on 07/02/2018 (a specialized housing agreement signed between the town administration and the applicant) Rostov Regional Court 28/06/2017 04/09/2017 (appeal instance) upheld 29/09/2017, 1 st cassation appeal refused   Supreme Court of Russia 11/12/2017, 2 nd cassation appeal refused Compensation refused . Claim dismissed with reference to the length and complexity of the procedures that the city administration had to follow to enforce the judgment. The courts found that the authorities were not inactive and took necessary measures to enforce the award. The applicant was entitled to State housing as an orphan.   Enforcement proceedings, details In 2015-2017 the Federal Bailiffs Service extended the time-limit for enforcement on several occasions and warned the city administration about the criminal liability for failure to comply with the 2015 court decision. During the same period of time the city administration unsuccessfully lodged several applications with the district court seeking to extend the time-limit for enforcement. On 04/08/2016 the prosecutor’s office notified the city administration about the violations committed in the context of enforcement of the applicant’s and other similar court decisions.   44742/18 11/09/2018 Tatyana Nikolayevna KUZNETSOVA 04/06/1976 Russian   Anatoliy Sergeyevich KUZNETSOV 22/09/2006 Russian     Arina Sergeyevna KUZNETSOVA 08/12/1996 Russian   Serafimovskiy, the Republic of Bashkortostan   Tuymazinskiy District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 17/04/2014 20/05/2014 (final)   “... the Tuymazinskiy District administration ... to provide [the applicants] with suitable housing under a social tenancy agreement within 6   months from the date when that judgement becomes final”   Not enforced to date Enforcement delay : >4 years   Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 22/06/2017 18/08/2017 (appeal instance)   12/02/2018, 1 st cassation appeal refused   Supreme Court of Russia 24/04/2018, 2 nd cassation appeal refused (A copy of the refusal received by the applicants by mail on 12   May 2018) Claim granted in part . The first and the third applicants were awarded RUB 5,000 each. The second applicant was awarded RUB 7,000 (EUR   104), on account of his disability. The court found that the failure to execute the judgment deprived him of the possibility “to live in acceptable living conditions”. In total, the applicants were awarded approximately EUR   252 per household. The courts decided that the Compensation Act was applicable only to the period of non-enforcement from 01/01/2017 (date of the amendments in the Compensation Act’s entry into force) onwards, and considered that the non ‑ enforcement lasted for 5   months and 22 days. They dismissed the applicants’ claim with regard to the prior period. The applicants, three members of one family, are entitled to State housing on account of the second applicant’s life-long disability due to a serious illness.