Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)154

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Prokopovich against Russian Federation

(Application No. 58255/00, judgment of 18 November 2004, final on 18 February 2005)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the unlawful eviction of the applicant from a flat after the death of her late partner who held tenancy rights to the flat (violation of article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Russian Federation’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)154

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Prokopovich against Russian Federation

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the applicant’s forcible eviction from a flat after the death of her late partner who held tenancy rights to the flat. The Court noted that domestic law permitted eviction only on grounds established by law and only on the basis of a court order (Housing Code of 24 June 1983, as amended on 28 March 1998, effective at the material time). That provision introduced an important procedural safeguard against arbitrary evictions and its wording permitted no exceptions. The Court further referred to the position of the Russian Government, which conceded that the procedure established by law should have been followed in the applicant’s case, even though her residence had not been legally established. The Court saw no reason to dissent and concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home was not in accordance with the law, as she had been evicted without a court order (violation of Article 8).

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
-	6 000 EUR	120 EUR	6 120 EUR	
Paid on 25/04/2005	

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage she sustained as a result of the violation found. No further claim has been lodged by the applicant.
Therefore no further individual measure appears necessary.

II.	General measures

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its judgment of 5 February 1993 -that is, long before the event at issue- found that eviction without a court order is unconstitutional. Subsequently, domestic law was amended accordingly (see the Introductory case summary above), and the Housing Code of 2004, currently in force, also provides eviction only on the basis of a court order.

The Russian authorities have indicated that the judgment of the European Court was sent out to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation, to the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, to the Federal Baliff Service, and has also been disseminated amongst all Russian courts together with a circular letter from the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The Court’s judgment was also published in the Bulletin of the European Court (Russian edition) No. 8, 2006. The government underline that the procedure established by law should have been followed in the present case and that consequently the applicant should not have been evicted without a court order. The government accordingly consider that publication and dissemination of the judgment are sufficient to prevent further similar violations.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Russian Federation has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.