BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF TARASOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 13910/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 September 2006
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 Tarasov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis,
President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F.
Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application (no. 13910/04)
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
Andrey Anatolyevich Tarasov (“the applicant”), on 6 March
2004.
- The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On 22 February 2005 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 1961 and lives in the town of
Dubna in the Moscow Region.
A. Proceedings for provision of housing
- On 17 June 2002 the Dubna Town Court allowed the
applicant's claim against the Dubna Town Administration for provision
of housing. The Town Court ordered that the administration:
“...provide Mr Tarasov, whose family comprises
three members, with a separate well-equipped flat having a living
surface of no less than 61 square metres on the basis of a special
tenancy agreement...”.
- The judgment was upheld on appeal on 12 August 2002 by
the Moscow Regional Court.
- Enforcement proceedings were opened. However, the
judgment could not be enforced because the town administration
possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a
flat.
- On 24 February 2005 the Dubna Town Administration
signed a contract with the applicant. According to the contract, the
administration was to provide the applicant with a flat in 2005.
- On 25 February 2005, upon the applicant's request, the
Dubna Town Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings.
- In August 2005 the Dubna Town Administration bought a
three-room flat for the applicant. It appears that in September 2005
the applicant moved into the flat.
B. Proceedings concerning the method of enforcement of
the judgment of 17 June 2002
- In February 2003 the applicant requested a court to
amend the method of enforcement of the judgment of 17 June 2002 and
to order that the Dubna Town Administration should pay him the value
of a flat.
- On 26 February 2003 the Dubna Town Court dismissed the
applicant's claim. That judgment was quashed on appeal on 2 April
2003 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.
- On 26 June and 18 September 2003 the Dubna Town Court
allowed the claim. Both judgements were quashed on appeal and the
matter was remitted for re-examination.
- On 10 March 2004 the Town Court dismissed the
applicant's claim. The judgment became final on 22 June 2004.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The applicant complained under Articles 1, 8, 13, 17
and 53 of the Convention that the judgment of 17 June 2002, as upheld
on appeal on 12 August 2002, was not timeously enforced. The
Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 26,
ECHR 2002 III). The relevant parts of these provisions
read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time... by [a]... tribunal...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law...”
A. Admissibility
- 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 the judgment of 17 June
2002, as upheld on appeal on 12 august 2002, remained unenforced
until February 2005 because the Dubna Town Administration did not
have financial resources to purchase a flat for the applicant.
- The applicant maintained his claims.
- The Court observes that on 17 June 2002 the applicant
obtained a judgment in his favour by which he and his family members
were to be granted a flat. The judgment became enforceable on 12
August 2002. It was enforced in August 2005 when the Dubna Town
Administration bought the flat for the applicant. Thus, it remained
unenforced for approximately three years.
- The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases
raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see
Malinovskiy v. Russia,
no. 41302/02, § 35 et seq., ECHR 2005; Teteriny
v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41 et seq., 9 June 2005;
Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; Burdov, cited above, § 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. The Court notes that the judgment was not enforced
because the debtor did not possess available housing and did not have
financial recourses to purchase a flat. However, the Court reiterates
that 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 (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35,
16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, §
23, 24 February 2005). Admittedly, a delay in the execution of a
judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay
may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under
Article 6 § 1. The applicant should not be prevented from
benefiting from the success of the litigation on the ground of
alleged financial difficulties experienced by the State (see
Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002 III).
- The Court finds that by failing for years to comply
with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic
authorities impaired the essence of his right to a court and
prevented him from receiving a flat he could reasonably have expected
to receive.
- There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The applicant furthermore complained under Articles 6
and 8 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning the method of
enforcement of the judgment of 17 June 2002 had been unfair and
excessively long and that for more than three years he had not been
able to live in a flat awarded by the judgment of 17 June 2002.
However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in
so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence ratione
materiae, the Court finds that they do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. 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 23,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government contested the claim as excessive and
unsubstantiated.
- 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 considers that the
applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards him EUR 2,400 under that head, plus
any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant also claimed EUR 11,100 for the costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and in the
Strasbourg proceedings. Those included EUR 10,800 in respect of legal
fees paid to a lawyer and EUR 300 for postal expenses.
- The Government did not comment.
- According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is
entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as
it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the above
criteria, the Court rejects the claim for legal expenses as the
applicant was not represented by a lawyer in the domestic or
Strasbourg proceedings. As regards the remainder of the applicant's
claims, the Court accepts that the applicant incurred postal
expenses. It however considers the amount claimed to be excessive.
Having regard to the elements at its disposal, the Court awards the
applicant EUR 30 for the costs related to the proceedings before the
Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
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 of 17 June 2002, as upheld on appeal
on 12 August 2002, admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of
prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 June 2002, as upheld
on appeal on 12 August 2002;
- 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, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian
roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i) EUR 2,400 (two thousand and four hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 30 (thirty euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amounts 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 28 September 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
