CASE OF GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Conclusions: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 – Victim)
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible
Violation of Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 – Effective remedy) Violation of Article 6 – Right to a fair trial (Article 6 – Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 – Access to court) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) Pecuniary damage – award Non-pecuniary damage – award

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11, 60822/11)

STRASBOURG

1 July 2014

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Ksenija Turković,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 June 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in eleven applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Russian nationals (“the applicants”). Their details and the dates of their applications to the Court appear below in appendix.
2. On 28 March 2011 the first applicant, OMISSIS passed away. His widow, OMISSIS, informed the Court of her wish to pursue the proceedings in her late husband’s stead. The Government did not object. The Court accepts OMISSIS’s standing in the case.
3. OMISSIS. None of the other applicants were represented by a lawyer.
4. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
5. The applicants alleged, in particular, that the domestic judgments ordering the authorities to grant them flats or to honour other obligations in kind had not been enforced within a reasonable time. Some of the applicants also alleged that they did not dispose of an effetive domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of those judgments.
6. On 10 April 2012 the Court decided to communicate the applicants’ complaints to the Government, raising additional questions about the structural nature of the underlying problems. The Court also decided to grant the applications priority under Rule 41 and to inform the parties that it was considering the suitability of applying a pilot-judgment procedure (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 125-46, ECHR 2009).
7. In all but two cases (Kostyleva, no. 61186/10 and Grinko, no. 45381/11) the Government submitted unilateral declarations acknowledging the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and offering them monetary compensation in that regard. The applicants provided their comments on the Government’s declarations. The parties filed observations on the admissibility and merits of the two above mentioned applications which did not give rise to unilateral declarations by the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. The applicants are all Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. They obtained binding judicial decisions ordering the State authorities to provide them with housing or various services in kind, but the enforcement of those judgments was considerably delayed. Some of the judgments remain unenforced to date. The applicants’ individual circumstances are detailed below.
A. Delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour
1. The case of Mr Gerasimov (application no. 29920/05 lodged on 26 July 2005)
9. The applicant, Mr Mikhail Yefimovich Gerasimov, was born on 30 June 1927 and lived in Vladivostok, Primorskiy Region.
10. On 3 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok ordered the town administration to conclude a contract for utilities with the applicant before 1 December 2002, and to repair the basement of the building he lived in in accordance with the sanitary regulations before the cold season. The judgment became final on 14 September 2002.
11. On 14 March and 17 May 2005 a commission composed of several members of the housing maintenance authority and residents inspected the basement and found it up to standard.
12. On the 27 July 2005 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment, finding that the basement had been repaired as required.
13. On 19 July 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok clarified the judgment of 3 September 2002 with regard to the utilities to be supplied. The court specified that the applicant’s apartment had to be provided with heating, hot and cold water, wastewater services and a cleaning service for the communal area. The enforcement proceedings were resumed.
14. On an unspecified date, the town administration provided the applicant with a draft contract for the utilities but the applicant refused to sign it without giving a reason.
15. Considering their obligations under the judgment of 3 September 2002 to be fulfilled, the town administration requested that the enforcement proceedings be closed. The bailiffs refused.
16. On 17 October 2007 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the administration’s complaint against the bailiffs’ refusal to close the enforcement proceedings.
17. On 11 December 2007 the Primorskiy Regional Court granted the administration’s appeal, finding that the latter had taken all possible measures to comply with the judgment of 3 September 2002.
18. The bailiffs accordingly closed the enforcement proceedings on 21 January 2008.
2. The case of Mr Shmakov (application no. 3553/06 lodged on 28 December 2005)
19. The applicant, Mr Andrey Gennadyevich Shmakov, was born on 30 October 1960 and lives in Yakutsk, Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).
20. On 10 January 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court ordered the town administration to provide the applicant and his family with appropriate housing in Yakutsk, in accordance with the law, in lieu of his house, which had been demolished by the authorities in 2001. The judgment became final on 21 January 2002.
21. As the judgment had still not been enforced, in 2004 the applicant unsuccessfully sought a court order for the seizure of an apartment in a new block which had been built on the plot of land on which his former house had stood.
22. On 7 July 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court specified that the judgment had to be enforced by the mayor’s office of Yakutsk.
23. On 3 March 2010 the Yakutsk Town Court modified the method of enforcement, specifying that the judgment could be enforced by the payment of 1,653,264 Russian roubles (RUB) by the town administration. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment and received the monetary award on 1 July 2010.
3. The case of Ms Baranova (application no. 18876/10 lodged on 13 March 2010)
24. The applicant, Ms Lyubov Mikaylovna Baranova, was born on 17 April 1960 and lives in Bazarniy Syzgan, Ulyanovsk Region.
25. On 14 April 2009 the Bazarnosyzganskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region ordered the municipal administration to provide heating supply to her flat. On 26 May 2009 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. In a judgment of 16 July 2009 the Inzenskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region specified possible ways of enforcing the judgment of 14 April 2009, namely, by ensuring either a hot water or natural gas supply for heating purposes.
26. On 23 March 2010 an individual gas heating device was installed in the applicant’s flat.
27. On 14 July 2010 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the respondent authority had properly complied with the judgment of 14 April 2009.
4. The case of Ms Kostyleva (application no. 61186/10 lodged on 4 October 2010)
28. The applicant, Ms Tatyana Salikhzanovna Kostyleva, was born on 13 September 1960 and lives in Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi.
29. On 2 October 2000 the Syktyvkar Town Court ordered the town administration to renovate the building in which the applicant held a flat under a social tenancy agreement. The judgment became final on 10 November 2000 (“the first judgment”).
30. On 1 December 2000 the bailiffs commenced the enforcement proceedings. The building has at times been included in the town’s plans to renovate municipal housing but the repairs have never been carried out owing to a lack of funds and a shortage of temporary housing facilities where residents could be relocated during the renovation.
31. On 20 July 2009 the Syktyvkar Town Court found that the applicant was still living in unsuitable conditions and ordered the town administration to provide her and her family with comfortable housing of at least 40.8 sq. m. On 5 August 2009 the judgment became final (“the second judgment”) and on 12 August 2009 the bailiffs started the enforcement proceedings.
32. On 10 February 2010 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed the authorities’ request for a stay on the enforcement of the second judgment, considering that such a course of action would endanger the applicant’s and her family’s life and health. The bailiffs’ made repeated, albeit unsuccessful attempts to secure the enforcement of the judgment by the town administration, including by warning the head of administration of his criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code.
33. Neither the first nor the second judgment in the applicant’s favour has been enforced to date. According to the latest information received by the Court, she was still living in the same building. On the evening of 14 May 2012 there was an electrical short circuit in the communal area on the first floor, provoking a smoke emission in the building.
34. Meanwhile, the competent authorities continued the enforcement proceedings. After the communication of the present application to the Russian Government, the bailiffs requested the Syktyvkar Town Court on 23 May 2012 to provide them with a duplicate of the writ of execution in respect of the first judgment, which had been lost shortly after its delivery. On 27 June 2012 the court ordered a duplicate of the writ of execution to be delivered and the bailiffs resumed the enforcement proceedings on 13 September 2012. On that date the bailiff of the Inter-District Division for Special Enforcement Procedures in the Komi Republic (Межрайонный отдел судебных приставов по особым исполнительным производствам Управления Федеральной службы судебных приставов по Республике Коми) decided as follows:
“1. To initiate enforcement proceedings no. 10594/12/22/11 [in respect of the Syktyvkar Town Administration].
2. To set a time-limit of five days for the debtor’s voluntary compliance with the requirements provided for in the writ of execution (section 30(12) of the Federal Law ‘On enforcement proceedings’).
3. To warn the debtor that it will be liable to pay an enforcement fee of RUB 5,000 in the event of non-compliance within the time-limit set and failure to produce evidence that enforcement is impossible on account of extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances. In the event of extraordinary and objectively unavoidable circumstances and other unexpected and insurmountable obstacles making voluntary enforcement impossible, the debtor is requested to inform the bailiff accordingly within the time-limit set for voluntary compliance.
4. To warn the debtor that under section 6 of Federal Law no. 229-FZ of 2 October 2007 on enforcement proceedings the requirements of the bailiff are binding on all State authorities, local authorities, individuals and organisations and must be rigorously complied with throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.
5. To warn the debtor that under section 105(2) of Federal Law no. 229-FZ of 2 October 2007 on enforcement proceedings the bailiff may impose a fine provided for by Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences on a debtor who does not fulfil, within a new time-limit, the requirements set out in the writ of execution.
6. To warn the debtor that under sections 116 and 117 of Federal Law no. 229-FZ of 2 October 2007 on enforcement proceedings the expenses related to the enforcement proceedings are to be paid back by the debtor to the federal budget, the creditor and anyone else who incurred those expenses.
7. To warn the debtor that State officials may be prosecuted under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for non-enforcement of a judicial decision.
… ”
35. On 2 August 2012 the bailiff was informed by the Town Administration that the enforcement of the judgment was impossible owing to a lack of available flats.
36. On 10 October 2012 the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second judgment were still pending along with 309 other similar judgments against the town administration. The bailiff noted that the delay in enforcement could be explained, in particular, by the high number of judgments to be enforced, the lack of available flats and insufficient funding allocated for the building of new flats. The enforcement proceedings referred to by the bailiffs in the applicant’s case included compulsory requests for the allocation of flats, the inclusion of additional funds in the budget, the identification of available housing and the seizure of available flats with a view to their allocation in accordance with the waiting list. The bailiff also informed the applicant that she was no. 39 on the waiting list.
37. On 11 January 2013 the bailiff warned the head of the town administration about criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code for non-enforcement of a judgment.
38. According to the latest information, the applicant had moved up to no. 27 on the waiting list.
5. The case of Mr Starostenkov (application no. 21176/11 lodged on 21 February 2011)
39. The applicant, Mr Yuriy Vasilyevich Starostenkov, was born on 8 June 1954 and lives in Smolensk. A retired police officer, he was assigned to life-long disability category two in 1993 on account of injuries sustained during his service.
40. On 3 July 2008 the Velizhskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region upheld the applicant’s right to be provided with a car for rehabilitation purposes and ordered the Department for Social Development of the Smolensk Region to ensure he was provided with one. This judgment became final on 18 July 2008.
41. On 2 September 2008 the court supplemented the judgment of 3 July 2008, specifying that the applicant’s right to a car might be secured either at the expense of the regional budget or by informing the Federal Health Agency of his needs. However, the judgment was not enforced.
42. After the communication of the present application to the Russian Government, on 19 June 2012 the bailiff imposed a fine of RUB 30,000 on the debtor authority in accordance with Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences. On 7 August 2012 the bailiff’s decision was quashed by the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk on the ground that the debtor authority’s act did not amount to an administrative offence.
43. On 2 October 2012 the bailiff warned the head of the debtor authority about criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code for non-enforcement of a judgment.
44. On 23 November 2012 the Governor of the Smolensk Region issued Order no. 1695-р/адм allocating RUB 354,900 for the purchase of a car for the applicant. According to an estimate issued on 18 October 2012 by the Department for Social Development those funds would cover the purchase of a car (a Lada Kalina 11173 (RUB 298,900)) and special hand control equipment (RUB 56,000).
45. On 24 December 2012 the applicant received a Lada 212140 without any special hand control equipment. On 26 December 2012 the enforcement proceedings were closed.
6. The case of Mr Zakharchenko (application no. 36112/11 lodged on 24 May 2011)
46. The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Arturovich Zakharchenko, was born on 4 September 1966 and lives in Saint Petersburg.
47. The applicant is a military serviceman. On 30 November 2006 the Pushkin Garrison Military Court ordered the Commandant of military unit no. 3526 to provide, as a matter of priority, the applicant and his family with housing in the geographical area of his military service in accordance with the law in force. The judgment became final on 16 December 2006 but was not enforced.
48. After the communication of the present application to the Russian Government on 14 September 2012, the Housing Commission allocated a flat located in the Saint-Petersburg suburbs to the applicant. On 1 October 2012 the applicant was provided with that flat and on 1 February 2013 concluded a social tenancy contract with the authorities.
7. The case of Ms Troshina (application no. 36426/11 lodged on 11 May 2011)
49. The applicant, Ms Marina Yevgenyevna Troshina, was born on 14 July 1961 and lives in Moscow.
50. On 13 April 2007 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the Moscow Regional Office of the Federal Real Estate Cadastral Agency (Управление Федерального агентства кадастра объектов недвижимости по Московской области) to consider a request by the applicant dated 29 December 2005 by which she had requested data from the land register in respect of a plot of land located in the village of Polushkino, Odintsovso District, Moscow Region (cadastral no. 50:20:13:7:2:13). The judgment became final on 4 May 2007 and the enforcement proceedings were brought on an unspecified date. However, the enforcement of the judgment was delayed.
51. On 8 February 2010 the Russian Ministry for Economic Development issued Order no. P/41 for the reorganisation of the defendant authority and its incorporation into the Moscow Regional Directorate of the Federal Registration Agency. The relevant powers were later conferred to the Federal State Agency “Cadastral Chamber” for the Moscow Region (Федеральное государственное учреждение «Кадастровая палата» по Московской области – “the Moscow Region Cadastral Chamber”).
52. On 22 March 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court granted the applicant’s request for clarification on how the enforcement would be carried out. It specified that the judgment had to be executed by the Moscow Regional Directorate for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Управление Федеральной службы государственной регистрации, кадастра и картографии – “the Directorate”) as successor to the respondent authority under the judgment of 13 April 2007.
53. On 30 September 2011 the same court dismissed the Directorate’s request for appointment of the Moscow Cadastral Chamber as successor to the respondent authority under the judgment of 13 April 2007.
54. On 2 December 2011 the Directorate requested the Moscow Cadastral Chamber to provide the data required by the judgment. On 15 December 2011 the latter informed the Directorate that the register contained no information about the plot of land concerned and recommended that the applicant seek its registration by the competent authority of the Odintsovo district. On 23 December 2011 that information was sent to the applicant.
55. On 26 December 2011 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings. On 20 March 2012 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the bailiffs’ decision, considering that the judgment of 13 April 2007 had been fully enforced.
8. The case of Ms Ilnitskaya (application no. 40841/11 lodged on 15 June 2011)
56. The applicant, Ms Natalya Vasilyevna Ilnitskaya, was born on 1 September 1961 and lives in Shikhany, Saratov Region. She is a former member of the Russian army.
57. On 24 November 2008 the Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region upheld her right to a housing voucher. The judgment became final on 9 December 2008 but was only enforced on 15 February 2011 when a housing voucher issued on 24 February 2010 (no. 672764) was processed with a view to purchasing a flat in Volsk, Saratov Region.
9. The case of Mr Grinko (application no. 45381/11 lodged on 25 July 2011)
58. The applicant, Mr Aleksey Alekseyevich Grinko, was born on 25 July 1978 and lives in Vatutinki, Moscow Region. He is a military serviceman.
59. On 8 December 2006 the Naro-Fominskiy Garrison Military Court ordered the commandant of military unit no. 72064 to grant the applicant priority housing in accordance with the law in force. The judgment became final on 25 December 2006 but was not enforced.
60. The bailiffs brought the enforcement proceedings on 29 June 2009 but their repeated requests to the respondent authorities did not result in any action being taken.
61. On 22 February 2011 the Naro-Fominskiy Garrison Military Court supplemented the judgment, specifying that it had to be enforced by the Housing Department of the Russian Ministry of Defence (Департамент жилищного обеспечения Министерства обороны Российской Федерации – “the Housing Department”).
62. After the communication of the present application to the Russian Government, on 14 May 2012, the competent bailiff addressed the Minister of Defence with a view to bringing the officials responsible to administrative responsibility.
63. On 23 May 2012 the bailiff of the Inter-District Division for Special Enforcement Procedures in Moscow (Межрайонный отдел судебных приставов по особым исполнительным производствам Управления Федеральной службы судебных приставов по Mocкве) warned the head of the Housing Department that she could face criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code for non-enforcement of a judgment. On 12 June, 12 July and 24 October 2012 the bailiffs again requested the debtor to comply with the judgment.
64. On 22 June 2012 the bailiffs of the Moscow Special Operational Division (Специализированный отдел оперативного дежурства УФССП России по Москве) appeared in person to summon the head of the Housing Department but the latter was not found at her place of residence.
65. On 28 June 2012 the bailiff handed a warning under Article 315 of the Criminal Code in person to the head of the Housing Department at her place of residence but the latter refused to acknowledge receipt.
66. On 6 July 2012 the Odintsovskiy Garrison Military Court found that the allocation of an apartment to the applicant in Balashikha, Moscow Region, had been unlawful.
67. On 10 December 2012 the bailiff suspended the State registration proceedings in respect of 327 apartments in Moscow in order to compel the respondent authority to comply with the judgment.
68. On 28 January 2013 the bailiff again summoned the head of the Housing Department to appear in person in order to explain the reasons for the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment.
69. According to the latest information received by the Court, the judgment in the applicant’s favour remained unenforced.
10. The case of Ms Antonova (application no. 55929/11 lodged on 10 September 2011)
70. The applicant, Ms Svetlana Nikolayevna Antonova, was born on 10 September 1959 and lives in Lyubertsy, Moscow Region. She served in the Border Control Service of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (“the FSB”) and was entitled to housing.
71. On 5 April 2005 the Odintsovo Garrison Military Court ordered the relevant department of the FSB to provide the applicant and her family, as a matter of priority, with housing located in the geographic area of her service in accordance with the law in force.
72. That judgment became final on 22 April 2005 but was only enforced on 16 February 2012 when the applicant concluded a social tenancy agreement with military unit no. 55002 for a flat located in Lyubertsy, Moscow Region.
11. The case of Ms Tsvetkova (application no. 60822/11 lodged on 16 August 2011)
73. The applicant, Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Tsvetkova, was born on 12 December 1951 and lives in Kostroma.
74. On 15 December 2008 the Ostrovskiy District Court of the Kostroma Region ordered the local administration to provide the applicant with comfortable social housing in accordance with the sanitary and technical regulations in force and located in Ostrovskoye, Kostroma Region. On 30 December 2008 that judgment became final but its enforcement was delayed.
75. On 1 September 2011 the district court granted the applicant’s application for a change in the method of enforcement and ordered the local administration to pay her RUB 442,368, that is, the market value of the housing to which she was entitled. On 3 October 2011 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Kostroma Regional Court. The award was paid to the applicant in six instalments between 31 January and 22 March 2012.
B. Attempts to use domestic remedies against delayed enforcement of the judgments
1. The Compensation Act
76. The six applicants mentioned below applied to the competent Russian courts with claims for compensation for delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour, relying on Federal 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”).
77. The domestic courts consistently found those actions inadmissible. They held that the judgments at issue imposed on the authorities various obligations in kind, while the Compensation Act was only applicable to delayed enforcement of judgments establishing a monetary debt to be recovered from the State budgets. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed on appeal that the Compensation Act was only applicable to monetary judicial awards.
78. The domestic courts concerned and the dates of their decisions are detailed below.
Ms Kostyleva: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 30 July 2010 (upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28 September 2010);
Mr Zakharchenko: Leningrad Circuit Military Court, 6 October 2010 (upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 2 December 2010);
Ms Ilnitskaya: Saratov Regional Court, 4 February 2011 (upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 12 April 2011);
Mr Grinko: Moscow Circuit Military Court, 26 October 2010 (upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 25 January 2011);
Ms Antonova: Moscow Circuit Military Court, 29 August 2011;
Ms Tsvetkova: Kostroma Regional Court, 21 June 2011 (upheld on appeal by the same court on 27 July 2011).
2. Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure
79. On 31 May 2011 the applicant Ms Kostyleva sued the town administration for failure to comply with the judgments in her favour (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above). Relying on Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure she asked the Syktyvkar Town Court to acknowledge the administration’s failings to be in breach of both the domestic law and the Convention.
80. On 2 June 2011 the court dismissed the complaint without considering the merits. It specified that such a complaint had to be considered in accordance with a special procedure provided for under Article 441 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
81. On 30 June 2011 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic granted the applicant’s appeal and quashed the judgment. It found that the applicant’s complaint should have been examined by the lower court under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
82. On 11 September 2011 the Syktyvkar Town Court reconsidered the applicant’s complaint and granted it in part. With reference to the Convention and the Court’s case-law, the Syktyvkar Town Court found the administration’s failings unlawful and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the applicant’s case. It noted in particular that the first judgment of 2000 had not been enforced for at least eight and a half years, that is, until the delivery of the second judgment in 2009. At the same time the court rejected the applicant’s request that the administration be ordered to comply with the first judgment by 31 December 2011, considering that the building she lived in was unsuitable for renovation and that the second judgment in the applicant’s favour had already ordered the town administration to provide her with other housing.
83. On 7 November 2011 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic dismissed the administration’s appeal against the judgment of 11 September 2011.
3. The Civil Code
84. On 13 January 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court partially granted Ms Kostyleva’s civil action against the town administration and awarded her RUB 150,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the administration’s failure to comply with the first judgment in her favour for at least eight and a half years, that is, until the delivery of the judgment of 20 July 2009. The court relied in particular on Article 151 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.
85. On 20 February 2012 the applicant brought an appeal against that judgment. She argued that the monetary award had not adequately compensated for the serious non-pecuniary damage she had sustained and was not comparable to the amounts that the Court would have granted in such circumstances (Zolotareva and Others v. Russia, nos. 14667/05 et al., 12 April 2011).
86. The applicant’s complaint was dismissed and the judgment upheld on appeal and cassation on 19 April 2012 and 17 July 2012 respectively.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Constitution of the Russian Federation
87. The Constitution provides that everyone is entitled to judicial protection of his rights and freedoms (Article 46 § 1) and that the State authorities’ acts and decisions are subject to judicial review (Article 46 § 2).
B. Binding force of judicial decisions and enforcement procedure
88. Federal Constitutional Law no. 1-FKZ of 31 December 1996 “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation” holds that all judicial decisions which have become binding (literally “come into legal force” – вступившие в законную силу) are mandatory for all authorities without any exception and shall be rigorously complied with throughout the whole territory of the Russian Federation (section 6(1)). Failure to comply with a judicial decision and any other act amounting to contempt of court entail liability under federal law (section 6(2)).
89. Under Articles 13, 209 and 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time, a court judgment which has become binding is mandatory and must be executed.
90. Between 1997 and 2008, the enforcement procedure was governed by the Federal Law of 21 July 1997 (no. 119-FZ). It provided that a bailiff was to set a time-limit of up to five days for the defendant’s voluntary compliance with a writ of execution. The bailiff was to warn the defendant that coercive action would follow, should the defendant fail to comply with the time-limit (section 9). The enforcement proceedings had to be completed within two months of the receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff (section 13).
91. Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings no. 229-FZ of 2 October 2007, which entered into force on 1 February 2008, broadened the bailiffs’ powers. Under section 6 of the Law the requirements of the bailiff are binding on all State authorities, the local authorities, individuals and organisations and must be rigorously complied with throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. If a debtor does not fulfil the requirements set out in the writ of execution the bailiff imposes a fine under Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences (section 105). The bailiffs may, in particular, seize the debtor’s property, apply to the State registration authorities for the registration of property rights and impose temporary restrictions on the debtor’s travel abroad (section 64). They may send requests to the tax authorities and financial institutions asking for the debtor’s bank details and information about any funds and valuables he holds and the respective authorities must provide such information within seven days (section 69). The expenses related to the enforcement proceedings are to be paid back by the debtor to the federal budget, the creditor and anyone else who incurred those expenses (sections 116 and 117). Complaints about the bailiffs’ decisions, actions and omissions in the course of the enforcement proceedings may be submitted to their heirarchical superior in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Law (sections 121-28).
C. Domestic remedies in respect of the non-execution or delayed execution of judgments
1. Compensation Act
92. On 30 April 2010 Russian Parliament adopted Federal Law no. 68 FZ “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”). On the same date the Parliament adopted Federal Law no. 69-FZ, introducing a number of corresponding changes to the relevant federal laws. Both laws entered into force on 4 May 2010.
93. The Act entitles the party concerned to bring an action for compensation for a violation of his or her right to a trial within a reasonable time or the right to enforcement within a reasonable time of a judgment establishing a debt to be recovered from the State budgets (section 1(1)). A breach of the statutory time-limits for examination of the case does not amount per se to a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time or the right to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time (section1(2)). A compensation award is not dependent on the competent authorities’ fault (section 1(3)). The compensation is awarded in monetary form (section 2(1)). The amount of the compensation should be determined by the courts according to the applicant’s claims, the circumstances of the case, the length of the period during which the violation took place, the significance of its consequences for the applicant, the principles of reasonableness and fairness, and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (section 2(2)). Further details of the Compensation Act may be found in the Court’s decision in Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v. Russia (dec.), nos. 27451/09 and 60650/09, § 40, 23 September 2010.
94. The travaux préparatoires preceding the adoption of the Compensation Act reveal that the draft text initiated by the President of the Russian Federation provided that the parties to the enforcement proceedings also be entitled to claim compensation for delayed enforcement of a judicial decision establishing an obligation other than a monetary payment from the State budgets, if such delays resulted from failings on the part of the bailiffs (section 1(1)(2) of the draft). However, on 18 February 2010 the Government of the Russian Federation issued an opinion (no. 626-p-P4), suggesting, inter alia, that the latter provision be deleted from the draft, arguing that the main purpose of the new legislation was to address non enforcement of judgments against the State, its entities and municipalities, that is, public-law entities. The relevant paragraph was therefore deleted from the final draft Compensation Act as it was tabled in Parliament on 22 March 2010.
2. Restricted scope of the Compensation Act as upheld by the Russian supreme courts
95. Following the adoption of the Compensation Act several domestic courts attempted a wider interpretation of its section 1 so as to include the right to compensation for delayed enforcement of any judgment against the State, including judgments like those at issue in the present case. The courts’ conclusions were supported by references to Russia’s undertakings under the Convention and to the Court’s case-law. They considered in particular that the reference to “a judgment establishing a debt to be recovered from the State budgets” should not restrict the scope of the Compensation Act to monetary obligations since the State’s obligations in kind were also fulfilled at the expense of the State’s budget (see, for example, the judgment by the Northern Caucasus Circuit Military Court of 13 July 2010 cited in Ilyushkin and Others v. Russia, nos. 5734/08 et al., § 12, 17 April 2012). However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation systematically quashed such judgments and held that the Compensation Act was only applicable to monetary judgment debts to be paid by the State (ibid., § 22).
96. This case-law was upheld by Joint Ruling no. 30/64 issued by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Commercial Court on 23 December 2010 containing the guidelines for interpretation of the Compensation Act by Russian courts. As a result, the Compensation Act has been consistently held not to include the right to compensation in respect of delayed enforcement of the judgments ordering the State to provide housing or to comply with other obligations in kind (see Ilyushkin and Others, cited above, §§ 19-20). The Supreme Court held that claimants who are not entitled to claim compensation for delayed enforcement of judgments under the Compensation Act may still claim compensation by way of a tort action in accordance with Articles 1069 and 1070 of the Civil Code or claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage under Article 151 of that Code.
97. The problem of the limited scope of the Compensation Act was also raised before the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in two cases. The first case was brought by the Leningrad Circuit Military Court, which had reached the conclusion that section 1(1) of the Compensation Act was unconstitutional. The second was brought by an individual, Mr Golovin, whose complaint on account of the delayed enforcement of a judgment against a private person had earlier been dismissed by the Saratov Regional Court and the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court found both applications inadmissible by decisions delivered on 18 January (no. 45 O-O) and 8 February 2011 (no. 115-O-O), respectively. In the Constitutional Court’s view, it was not acceptable that the public authorities could abuse their special position resulting from the impossibility of seizure of their budgetary funds through enforcement proceedings; the proper enforcement of such judgments should therefore be ensured through other means, such as the establishment of appropriate procedures for liability and effective remedies in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention. That the Compensation Act only addressed the delayed enforcement of judgments of a particular type did not mean that the legislator excluded the right to claim damages for other instances of delayed enforcement resulting from the fault of another. Referring to the above-mentioned Ruling by the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court found that the general provisions of the Civil Code allowed compensation for delayed enforcement of judgments in cases falling outside the Compensation Act. As a result, the Constitutional Court did not find that section 1(1) of the Compensation Act violated the constitutional rights of the persons concerned. It added that it could not take over the legislator’s function in extending the scope of the Compensation Act.
3. Code of Civil Procedure
98. Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure sets out the procedure for challenging State authorities’ acts or inaction in courts. If a court finds that such a complaint is well-founded, it orders the State authority concerned to remedy the breach or unlawfulness found (Article 258).
4. Civil Code
99. Damage caused by unlawful action or inaction of State or local authorities or their officials is to be compensated from the Federal Treasury or a federal entity’s treasury (Article 1069). Compensation for damage caused to an individual by unlawful conviction, prosecution, detention on remand or prohibition on leaving his or her place of residence pending trial is granted in full regardless of the fault of the State officials concerned and following the procedure provided for by law (Article 1070 § 1). Damage caused in the course of the administration of justice is compensated if the fault of the judge is established by a final judicial conviction (Article 1070 § 2).
100. A court may hold the tortfeasor liable for non-pecuniary damage caused to an individual by actions impairing his or her personal non-property rights or affecting other intangible assets belonging to him or her (Articles 151 and 1099 § 1). Compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained through an impairment of an individual’s property rights is recoverable only in cases provided for by law (Article 1099 § 2 of the Civil Code). Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is payable irrespective of the tortfeasor’s fault if damage was caused to an individual’s life or limb, sustained through unlawful criminal prosecution, dissemination of untrue information and in other cases provided for by law (Article 1100 of the Civil Code).
101. On 3 July 2008 the Constitutional Court held (decision no. 734 O P) that Article 151 of the Civil Code was not to be interpreted as preventing courts from awarding compensation for damage resulting from non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions delivered against the State and its entities. In the Constitutional Court’s view, this did not relieve the legislator from the obligation to rapidly set up the criteria and procedure for compensation for damage arising from non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions by the State and its entities.
5. Criminal Code
102. Article 315 of the Criminal Code stipulates sanctions for persistent failure by a State official or civil servant to comply with a judicial decision that has acquired legal force. The sanctions include a fine, temporary suspension from service, community service (обязательные работы) for a maximum term of 240 hours or deprivation of liberty for a maximum term of two years.
D. Social housing
103. The RSFSR Housing Code (Law of 24 June 1983, in force until 28 February 2005) provided that a Russian citizen was entitled to possess a flat owned by the State under the terms of a tenancy agreement. Flats were granted for permanent use (Article 10). Priority was given to certain “protected” categories of individuals, such as disabled persons, war veterans, Chernobyl victims, police officers and judges. A decision to grant a flat was implemented by the local municipal authority issuing the citizen with an occupancy voucher (ордер на жилое помещение) (Article 47). On 1 March 2005 the new Housing Code of the Russian Federation came into force (Law no. 188-FZ of 29 December 2004). It upholds the right of certain Russian citizens to possess a flat owned by the State, under the terms of a tenancy agreement (Article 49). Numerous substantive and procedural mechanisms relating to citizens’ right to housing and its implementation are set forth in the Code and in other federal laws and regulations.
E. Servicemen’s right to housing
104. Federal Law no. 76-FZ of 27 May 1998 on the Status of Servicemen grants them the right to housing (section 15(1)(1)). That provision has been subject to numerous amendments over the years. According to the text in force as from 8 May 2006 (Law no. 66-FZ of 8 May 2006), the State was to ensure that servicemen be provided with housing or monetary funds to allow them to purchase housing in accordance with the procedure and under the conditions set by the federal laws and regulations. The text was again modified as from 1 January 2014 to specify, inter alia, that housing for servicemen or the monetary funds allocated for them to purchase housing are to be charged to the federal budget (Law no. 405-FZ of 28 December 2013). Numerous substantive and procedural mechanisms relating to servicemen’s right to housing and its implementation are set forth in the Law on the Status of Servicemen and in other federal laws and regulations.
F. The problems related to delayed enforcement of judgments against the State as addressed by the Russian authorities
1. The President of the Russian Federation
105. In his annual address to the Federal Assembly delivered on 5 November 2008, the President of the Russian Federation stated in particular that it was necessary to establish a mechanism for compensation for damage caused by violations of citizens’ rights to a trial within a reasonable time and to the full and timely implementation of court decisions. The President stressed that the execution of court decisions was still a huge problem which concerned all courts, including the Constitutional Court. He further stated that the problem was notably due to the lack of real accountability of officials and citizens who fail to execute court decisions and that this accountability was to be established.
106. In his latest address to the Federal Assembly delivered on 12 December 2013, the President specifically addressed the problem of the allocation of social housing. He stated that the Government had additionally planned to build 25 million square metres of housing by 2017, thus allowing families with modest revenues to improve their housing conditions. Overall, it was planned to build 75 million square metres of housing per year by 2016, while at the same time introducing legislative and administrative changes to facilitate the relevant procedures and provide the necessary facilities in the building area. The President further specified that all servicemen of the Ministry of Defence who were placed on the waiting list before 1 January 2012 had to be provided with permanent housing by the end of the year. He concluded that in the very near future the problem would be resolved and drew the attention of the Minister of Defence to the issue, asking him to look into each individual case so as to find the most suitable solution.
2. The Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation
107. On 11 March 2014 a new Bill (no. 470358-6) was tabled with the State Duma by Mr O. Kazakovtsev, a member of the Council of Federation, providing for the extension of the scope of the Compensation Act to include delayed enforcement of judgments imposing obligations in kind on the State authorities. The Bill has been included in a preliminary programme of the State Duma to be considered in June 2014.
3. The Government of the Russian Federation
(a) The Government’s monitoring of compliance with the Constitutional Court’s and the European Court’s judgments
108. In its annual report for 2012 submitted to the President in accordance with his Decree no. 657 of 20 May 2011 establishing the monitoring of the application of the law in the Russian Federation, the Government stated that the Ministries of Justice, Finance and Economic Development, in cooperation with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Commercial Court and the General Prosecutor’s Office, were to draw up amendments to the Compensation Act in order to address the enforcement by the State of judgments imposing obligations in kind. Those steps were proposed in accordance with the Court’s judgments in the cases of Kalinkin and Ilyushkin (cited below) and in connection with the communication by the Court of the case of Gerasimov and Others to the Government.
(b) The Government’s Federal Programmes in the field of justice
109. A Federal Programme for Development of the Russian Judicial System for 2007-2012 (Decree no. 583 of 21 September 2006) stated that the enforcement of domestic judgments lacked effectiveness as the compulsory enforcement rate did not exceed 52%. An analogous federal programme for 2013-2020 (Decree no. 1406 of 27 December 2012) acknowledged problems in the administration of justice, including the ineffective enforcement of judicial decisions. The introduction of modern information technologies into the judicial system was found to be necessary. The programme envisaged in particular the setting up of a computer-based information system with the Federal Bailiff Service and development of an electronic archive. The latest Federal Programme, named “Justice” (Decree no. 517 r of 4 April 2013), listed the improvement of the quality of the enforcement of judicial decisions among the priorities of the State’s official policy in the area.
4. The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation
110. The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation has regularly addressed the problem of non-enforcement of domestic judgments in his annual activity reports. The report for 2007 pointed out that the perception of domestic judgments as what one might call “non compulsory recommendations” was still a widespread phenomenon not only in society but also within State bodies. It noted that the non-enforcement problem had also arisen in respect of judgments of the Constitutional Court.
111. In the report for 2010 the Commissioner stated that the situation regarding the non-enforcement of domestic judgments in Russia had started to improve in the wake of the Burdov pilot judgment. While acknowledging some positive developments, he stated that there were still numerous complaints about the enforcement of domestic judgments.
112. The report for 2012 pointed out that the allocation of housing to military servicemen was still complicated, not least by the poor organisation of the related functions within the Ministry of Defence. The Commissioner received complaints that were indicative of structural problems in the functioning of the relevant authorities, such as a lack of transparency in the distribution of housing, excessive delays in examining servicemen’s complaints and in completing the formalities that allow them to move into the allocated apartments. According to the Commissioner’s own inquiry, 1,200 sets of enforcement proceedings for allocation of housing in Moscow to servicemen of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior’s troops and the FSB were pending before the Moscow Bailiff Department. According to the statistics received by the Commissioner from the Ministry of Defence, more than 1,000 of those judgments, three of which dated back to 1999, still remained unenforced.
III. COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS’ SUPERVISION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE COURT’S JUDGMENTS IN SIMILAR RUSSIAN CASES
113. The Committee of Ministers is supervising the implementation of the Court’s judgments delivered on numerous individual applications concerning the failed or delayed execution of domestic judgments imposing various obligations in kind on the State. The oldest case in this group has been pending before the Committee of Ministers since 2005 (Shpakovskiy v. Russia, no. 41307/02, 7 July 2005). In its Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)43, adopted on 19 March 2009, the Committee of Ministers assessed the state of affairs in the following terms:
“Recalling the consistent position of the Committee of Ministers, shared by the Russian authorities, as demonstrated in the Committee’s previous decisions, that the problems at the basis of the violations found by the Court in these judgments were large-scale and complex in nature and that their resolution required the implementation of comprehensive and complex measures at both federal and local level;
Considering the Memorandum (CM/Inf/DH(2006)19rev3) presenting the measures taken by the authorities and the outstanding issues and the Conclusions of two high level Round Tables on non-enforcement of court decisions by the state and its entities respectively of October 2006 (CM/Inf/DH(2006)45) and of June 2007 (CM/Inf/DH(2007)33);
As regards prevention of non-execution or delayed execution:
Noting in particular the progress made by the competent Russian authorities in resolving the main structural problems underlying the violations, through:
– continuous improvement of the legislative and regulatory framework which resulted particularly in the setting up of execution and enforcement mechanisms;
– adoption of a number of organisational measures, thus ensuring better monitoring of the execution by the state and its entities of court decisions;
– reform of the budgetary regulations with a view to guaranteeing additional funding to avoid unnecessary delays in the execution of judicial decisions in case of shortfalls in the initial budgetary appropriations;
Noting with satisfaction that these measures are, to a certain extent, based on the proposals made in the Committee of Ministers’ documents (see in particular CM/Inf/DH(2006)19 rev 3 and CM/Inf/DH(2006)45) and welcoming the authorities’ coordinated and interdisciplinary approach to their implementation;
Considering that despite the positive developments mentioned above, the major effects of these reforms, not least in preventing new applications before the Court, remain to be demonstrated and that further action is still needed to ensure full compliance by the Russian Federation with its obligations resulting from the Court’s judgments;
…
Stressing that the situation continues to give rise to serious concerns in a number of problematic areas and/or in respect of certain defendant state authorities, in particular
…
– execution of judicial decisions by the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence and certain other agencies;
Stressing therefore the need for the competent Russian authorities to enhance their efforts to make rapid and visible progress in the areas concerned, thus effectively ensuring at domestic level appropriate redress for violations of the Convention and preventing the risk of a further influx of applications before the Court;
As regards domestic remedies
Stressing that the provision of such remedies is all the more pressing in case of repetitive violations, so as to enhance the remedial capacity of the national judicial system, pending the implementation of more comprehensive and time-consuming reforms;
Recalling that in order for such remedy to be effective in cases of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, the following core requirements of the Convention should be met:
– a person should not be required to prove the existence of non-pecuniary damage as the latter is strongly presumed to be the direct consequence of the violation itself;
– compensation should not be conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of officials or the authority concerned as the state is objectively liable under the Convention for its authorities’ failure to enforce court decisions delivered against them within a reasonable time;
– the level of compensation must not be unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases;
– adequate budgetary allocations should be foreseen so as to ensure that compensation is paid promptly and generally no later than six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation becomes enforceable;
…
Noting with interest the draft federal constitutional law submitted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to Parliament on 30 September 2008, which takes account of these requirements of the Convention;
Noting further that a special working group involving the representatives of the main State agencies has been set up upon the President’s mandate rapidly to find an appropriate solution with a view to introducing a remedy required by the Convention in the Russian legal system;
…
CALLS UPON the Russian authorities to rapidly translate into concrete actions the will expressed at the highest political level to combat non-enforcement and delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions and to set up to that end effective domestic remedies either through rapid adoption of the constitutional law mentioned above or through amendment of the existing legislation in line with the Convention’s requirements;
URGES the Russian authorities to give priority to resolving outstanding non enforcement issues in the problem areas identified above so as rapidly to achieve concrete and visible results, thus limiting the risk of new violations of the Convention and of further applications before the Court;
ENCOURAGES the Russian authorities to continue their efforts in the implementation of the initiated reforms so as to ensure full and timely execution of domestic courts decisions, in particular through:
– ensuring better coordination between different authorities responsible for the execution of domestic judicial decisions so as to avoid the risk that claimants are caught in a vicious circle in which different authorities send them back and forth;
– further improving the rules governing all execution procedures, including appropriate role for bailiffs and judicial review;
– ensuring the existence of appropriate general regulations and procedures at federal and local level for the implementation of the authorities’ financial obligations;
– further developing recourse to different remedies already provided by Russian legislation so as to ensure their implementation in case of non-enforcement or belated enforcement of judicial decisions with sufficient certainty as required by the Convention;
– strengthening state liability for non-execution as well as the individual responsibility (disciplinary, administrative and criminal where appropriate) of civil servants;
… ”
114. According to the latest information available to the Court, the Committee of Ministers was awaiting updated information from the Russian authorities on further measures adopted or envisaged to comply with the Court’s judgments in this group of cases. In twenty-four cases the applicants complained that the domestic judgments in their favour had remained unenforced notwithstanding the finding of violations by the Court and its decisions that the authorities must secure the enforcement by appropriate means. The issue as to the effectiveness of domestic remedies against such violations in view of the limited scope of the Compensation Act also remained outstanding. However, the latest “action plan” submitted by the Government to the Committee of Ministers on 13 May 2014 fails to address the latter issue (see DH-DD(2014)658 of 19 May 2014).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
115. The Court notes that all the above applications contain similar grievances and raise similar issues under the Convention. It finds it appropriate, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, that the applications be joined in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S UNILATERAL DECLARATIONS AND REQUESTS TO STRIKE OUT NINE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
116. The Court reiterates at the outset that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the course of strictly confidential friendly-settlement proceedings and, on the other, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court, as in the present case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2003 VI). It will therefore examine in detail the Government’s unilateral declarations and the applicants’ comments on them in the light of the relevant Convention principles.
A. The Government’s unilateral declarations and the applicants’ comments
117. On 1 October 2012 the Government submitted unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised in the six applications lodged by Mr Gerasimov, Ms Baranova, Ms Troshina, Ms Ilnitskaya, Ms Antonova and Ms Tsvetkova. On 19 February 2013 the Government submitted similar declarations aiming at the resolution of the three other cases brought by Mr Shmakov, Mr Starostenkov and Mr Zakharchenko.
118. In all those cases the Government acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour and informed the Court of the dates of their enforcement (see paragraphs 9-75 above). The Government declared their readiness to pay the applicants the following sums as just satisfaction (the enforcement delays calculated by the Government in each case appear within parentheses):
Mr Gerasimov – 2,625 Euros (EUR) (5 years 4 months and 7 days);
Mr Shmakov – EUR 6,500 (8 years 5 months and 10 days);
Ms Baranova – EUR 560 (1 year 1 month and 18 days);
Mr Starostenkov – RUB 35,820 (4 years 5 months and 8 days);
Mr Zakharchenko – EUR 6,010 (6 years 1 month and 15 days);
Ms Troshina – EUR 2,280 (4 years 7 months and 22 days);
Ms Ilnitskaya – EUR 2,145 (2 years 2 months and 7 days);
Ms Antonova – EUR 6,500 (6 years 9 months and 24 days);
Ms Tsvetkova – EUR 3,165 (3 years 2 months and 23 days).
119. The Government therefore invited the Court to strike those applications out of the list of cases, suggesting that their declarations might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying such a course of action in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
120. Each declaration was concluded as follows:
“The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
121. The first applicant’s widow, Ms Gerasimova, and the applicant Ms Antonova agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations on 25 February 2013 and 3 December 2012, respectively. The other seven applicants declined the Government’s offers of compensation and maintained their complaints for the following reasons.
122. By a letter of 1 April 2013 Mr Shmakov considered that while the authorities’ actions appeared correct on the face of it, his family’s legitimate right to housing, upheld by the courts, had been severely violated for more than eight years, thus inducing him to accept the replacement of the initial housing award by an inadequate monetary sum (see paragraph 23 above).
123. Ms Baranova submitted on 7 November 2012 that the Government’s offer would not even come close to compensating for the damage to health and mental suffering sustained by her family, including her 85 year-old mother and 13 year-old daughter, who had had to spend two cold seasons in an unheated apartment.
124. On 18 March 2013 Mr Starostenkov disagreed with the Government’s declaration, considering that the measures taken by the authorities had not secured full redress. He argued that the respondent authority had not equipped the car with a special hand control device and, therefore, had enforced the judgment in a superficial manner without taking account of his special needs as a handicapped person. He concluded that his case could only be settled through an additional payment of RUB 56,000, corresponding to the costs of the hand control equipment (see paragraph 44 above).