CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 64 May 2004 Konovalov v. Russia (dec.) - 63501/00 Decision 27.5.2004 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Delay in the enforcement of judgments: admissible The applicant, who was a retired military serviceman and as such entitled to free housing under domestic legislation, applied for an apartment. As his request was refused, he brought an action against the town authority. In January 1996, the courts ordered that he be provided a free flat. The town authority did not comply with the judgment so the applicant brought a new action against it. In April 1998, the courts adopted a judgment ordering the town authority to pay the applicant a certain amount so that he could purchase a flat. The payment was made conditional on the town authority receiving funds from the State budget. The authorities subsequently informed the applicant that given a lack of funds they could not pay the compensation. In April 2000, the courts increased the amount of compensation which was to be paid to the applicant (again making it subject to the receipt of funds from the State budget). This judgment was not executed either on account of lack of funds. In November 2000, the 1998 judgment was quashed on supervisory review (two and a half years after it had been adopted). In a fresh examination of the case, the applicant withdrew his action as he was assured he would be given free housing. Admissible under Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as regards the judgment of April 1998. Inadmissible under Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as regards the judgments of January 1996 and April 2000, as these complaints were either incompatible ratione temporis or out of time.   © 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