[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF IVAN NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 12541/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
April 2008
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 Ivan Novikov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 12541/05) 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 a Russian national, Mr Ivan Ilyich Novikov
(“the applicant”), 19 March 2005.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mrs V. Milinchuk, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant complained about non-enforcement of a judgment in his
favour.
- On
7 May 2007 the Court decided to communicate the application to the
Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Sochi.
- In
1989 the applicant's employer granted him the right to use room no.
28 in a hostel. However, he could not move in because another person,
Mrs H., was living there. The applicant applied to a court for an
eviction order.
- On
25 June 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi found for the
applicant and held that he should move into room no. 28, whereas
Mrs H. and her family should move to a new flat which would be
provided by the Sochi Town Council and the municipal enterprise “REO
Obshchezhitiy g. Sochi” (the entity in charge of operation and
maintenance of Sochi dormitories). On 13 August 2002 the Krasnodar
Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
- On
5 September 2002 a writ of execution was submitted to the Sochi
Bailiffs' Service. According to the Government, on an unspecified
date the bailiffs fined the municipal enterprise “REO
Obshchezhitiy g. Sochi” for the failure to execute the
judgment.
- The
director of the municipal enterprise “REO Obshchezhitiy g.
Sochi” informed the bailiffs that, pursuant to the Sochi
Mayor's letter of 6 June 2002, the task of managing flats in
municipal hostels had been assigned to the municipal enterprise
“Kvartirno-pravovaya sluzhba goroda” (city service for
housing and legal matters).
- Given
that it was not clear which entity was responsible for execution of
the judgment, the bailiffs asked the District Court for a
clarification. Further to their request, on 13 February 2003 the
District Court clarified the judgment of 25 June 2002, indicating the
following order of enforcement. First, the Sochi Town Council would
provide a flat to Mrs H., then Mrs H. would be evicted from room no.
28 in the hostel, and, finally, the applicant would move into that
room.
- The
applicant complained to a court that the bailiffs had made no steps
to enforce the judgment. On 27 May 2003 the District Court held that
the bailiffs should take all necessary legal measures to enforce the
judgment.
- The
applicant then asked the court to amend the method of enforcement and
recover a sum of money from the Sochi Town Council equivalent to the
market price of one room. On 3 February 2004 the District Court
granted his application, finding that during more than one and a half
years the Town Council had taken no measures to provide Mrs H. with a
flat. The District Court held that the Town Council should pay the
applicant RUB 256,727. A representative of the Town Council did not
attend the hearing or lodge an appeal against the decision.
- On
16 March 2004 a bailiff issued a decision for the above amount to be
paid from the bank account of the Town Council. On the same day the
Town Council asked the court to reverse its decision of 3 February
2004 on account of newly-discovered circumstances. It claimed that it
had not been previously aware of the fact that on 21 January
2004 the applicant had refused, in writing, to move into room no. 28.
On 30 March 2004 the District Court granted the Town Council's
application and remitted the matter for a new examination.
- By
letter of 15 February 2005, the Sochi Mayor ordered the head of the
municipal enterprise “Kvartirno-pravovaya sluzhba goroda”
to take measures for immediate enforcement of the judgment of 25 June
2002.
- On
12 December 2005 the District Court amended the operative part of the
judgment of 25 June 2002. It held that Mrs H. and her family should
be evicted from room no. 28 and resettled into room no. 98 in the
same building and that the applicant would move into room no. 28.
- On
14 February 2006 Mrs H. and her family voluntarily moved out of room
no. 28 and the applicant moved in. The bailiffs closed the
enforcement proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment
of 25 June 2002, as upheld on appeal on 13 August 2002, breached
Article 6 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
- The Government submitted that the application was
inadmissible ratione materiae. In their view, the dispute, to
which the applicant was a party, was administrative in its nature and
did not affect the applicant's “civil rights and obligations”
within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.
- The
Court reiterates that the right to use a flat undeniably falls within
the scope of an individual's “civil rights and obligations”
even where the flat at issue was made available to him or her on the
basis of a social-tenancy agreement (see, for example, Pibernik v.
Croatia, no. 75139/01, § 48 et seq., 4 March 2004;
Jóri v. Slovakia, no. 34753/97, §§
42-49, 9 November 2000; and Gillow v. the United Kingdom,
judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, § 68
in fine). The Government's objection must therefore be
dismissed.
- The
Government further submitted that the applicant had lost his status
as a “victim” of the alleged violation because he had
withdrawn his claim for non-pecuniary damages in the proceedings
which had ended with the District Court's judgment of 3 February
2004.
- The
Court notes that at no point in time did the domestic authorities
acknowledge a violation of the applicant's right to a court arising
out of protracted enforcement of the judgment in his favour or afford
any redress to him. In any event, the judgment of 3 February 2004 on
which the Government relied, had been subsequently quashed on an
application by the Town Council. It follows that the applicant may
still claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violation.
- The Court notes that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government submitted that delays in the enforcement proceedings had
been caused by Mrs H. who had repeatedly failed to submit the
requisite documents to the city administration. They claimed that the
final decision on the applicant's claim had been issued on 12
December 2005 and enforced within two months. They maintained that
there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
- The
applicant alleged that the Russian authorities had been responsible
for all delays.
- The
Court observes that that on 25 June 2002 the applicant obtained a
judgment in his favour. By terms of the judgment, the town council
was to provide Mrs H. and her family with a flat, that being the
condition precedent for the applicant's moving into the room
currently occupied by Mrs H. That judgment became enforceable on 13
August 2002. However, for a long time the applicant could not move in
because no substitute housing had been granted to Mrs H. and her
family. The Court is not convinced by the Government's thesis that
delays had been attributable to Mrs H. This allegation finds no
support in any domestic decision and the Government did not produce
any other document to substantiate their claim. On the contrary,
there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that enforcement
of the judgment was impossible because of the town council's
continued failure to allocate substitute housing to Mrs H. (see
paragraphs 8, 11, 12 and 14 above). It follows that the Russian
authorities were responsible for more than four years' delay in
enforcement of the judgment.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present
case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23
et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03,
§ 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia,
no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov
and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et
seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, §
35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002 III).
-
Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by
failing to enforce the judgment in the applicant's favour the
domestic authorities violated his right to a court.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 18,000,000 Russian roubles in respect of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that there was no causal link between the
alleged violation and the claim for damages.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered
distress and frustration because of the State authorities' failure to
enforce the judgment in his favour within a reasonable time. The
particular amount claimed is, however, excessive. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis and taking into account the length
of the enforcement stage, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,100
in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not claim any amount for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
Consequently, the Court does not make any award under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning
non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,100
(three thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 April 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
