CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 juin 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 76 June 2005 Teteriny v. Russia - 11931/03 Judgment 30.6.2005 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Non-enforcement of “social tenancy” award by domestic court: violation   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Non-enforcement of “social tenancy” award by domestic court: violation   Facts : In 1994 a district court allowed the first applicant’s claim against a town council for provision of State housing, for which he was eligible as a judge. The town council was ordered to grant or purchase for him a flat or house with a habitable surface of no less than 65 square metres. The judgment could not be enforced, however, because the town authorities did not possess any available housing or the financial resources to purchase a flat. The first applicant’s various complaints were to no avail. In 2002 he requested the district court to change the method of execution in the sense that the value of the flat be paid to him in cash. These proceedings were eventually discontinued by the bailiff in 2003 on account of the town council’s lack of funds for constructing or purchasing housing. In 2004 the town council offered the first applicant a flat of 25 square metres, arguing that no State housing had been constructed since 1994 and that it was therefore not in a position to offer him a flat corresponding to the court award. The applicants did not accept the offer. Later in 2004 the enforcement proceedings were re-opened but the judgment of 1994 has not yet been enforced. The RSFSR Housing Code 1983 provided (until March 2005) that Russian citizens were entitled to possess flats owned by the State or municipal authorities or other public bodies, under the terms of a tenancy agreement. Certain “protected” categories such as judges had a right to priority treatment in the allocation of flats. A decision on granting a flat was to be implemented by way of issuing the citizen with an occupancy voucher from the local municipal authority. This voucher served as the legal basis for taking possession of the flat designated therein and for the signing of a tenancy agreement between the landlord, the tenant and the housing maintenance authority. Law – Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: Execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6. It is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources (such as housing) as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt. While a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, that delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1. A party should not be prevented from benefiting from the success of the litigation on the ground of alleged financial difficulties experienced by the State. The 1994 judgment had remained unenforced in its entirety to date and the offer made by the town council in 2004 had not met the terms of that judgment. By failing for years to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judicial decision in the present case, the Russian authorities have deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect. Conclusion : v iolation (unanimously). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The concept of “possessions” within the said provision is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as property rights, and thus as “possessions” for the purposes of this provision. The right to any social benefit is not included as such among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and the right to live in a particular property not owned by an applicant does not as such constitute a “possession”. A claim based on which an applicant can claim to have at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may nevertheless fall within the notion of a “possession”. Hence a “claim” even to a particular social benefit can constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable. By virtue of the 1994 judgment the town council was to place at the first applicant’s disposal a flat with certain characteristics. The judgment did not require the authorities to give him ownership of a particular flat, but rather obliged them to issue him with an occupancy voucher in respect of any flat satisfying the court-defined criteria. On the basis of the voucher, a so-called “social tenancy agreement” would have been signed between the competent authority and the first applicant. Under that agreement he would have been entitled to possess and make use of the flat and, under certain conditions, to privatise it. Accordingly, from the moment of the 1994 judgment the first applicant had had an established “legitimate expectation” to acquire a pecuniary asset. Accordingly, his claim to a “social tenancy agreement” was sufficiently established to constitute a “possession” falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The impossibility for him to obtain the execution of the judgment for more than ten years constituted an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions for which the Government had not advanced any plausible justification. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: The Court ordered the Government to secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made in the 1994 judgment. In addition, the Court awarded EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes