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 PONOMARENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 14656/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 February 2007
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 Ponomarenko v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr L.
Loucaides, President,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E.
Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 January 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application (no. 14656/03)
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, Ms
Olga Ivanovna Ponomarenko, (“the applicant”), on 29 March
2003.
- The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On 19 September 2005 the Court decided to give notice
of 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in
Chernyakhovsk, the Kaliningrad Region.
- On 27 March 2002 the Chernyakhovsk Town Court of the
Kaliningrad Region (the Town Court) allowed the applicant's claim
against the Chernyakhovsk housing authority of the Ministry of
Defence (квартирно-эксплуатационная
часть
Министерства
Обороны
РФ г.Черняховска)
for provision of accommodation. The Town Court ordered that the
housing authority:
“...provide Mrs
Ponomarenko, whose family comprises one member, with another
well-equipped dwelling premises for permanent use having a living
surface of no less than established standards of living surface for
one person (12 square metres), corresponding to the established
sanitary and technical standards and well-equipped in accordance with
the standards applied in Chernyakhovsk...”
- The Town Court also awarded the applicant 1,000 Russian
roubles (RUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- On 3 April 2002 the housing authority allocated to the
applicant a one-room flat. However, she did not accept the flat as it
did not meet sanitary standards.
8. No appeal was brought against the judgment of 27 March 2002
and it entered into force on 9 April 2002.
- On 12 April 2002 the bailiffs' service of the
Chernyakhovsk District initiated enforcement proceedings and on 30
April 2002 the defendant executed the judgment of 27 March 2002 as
regards the compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
- A special commission of the housing authority visited
the flat allocated to the applicant on 3 April and concluded, on 12
September 2002, that it was only equipped in part and occupied by
another person.
- On 23 May 2003 the housing authority unsuccessfully
applied to the Town Court for the re-opening of the proceedings due
to the newly discovered circumstances. They claimed that according to
the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation of 11
October 2001, the housing premises of the Ministry of Defence had
been handed over to the local administration. Therefore it was not
possible to enforce the judgment of 27 March 2002.
- On 17 May 2004, following the bailiff's request, the
Town Court noted that the housing authority had handed over to the
local administration only some housing premises. The court ordered
the bailiff to establish which premises were left at the disposal of
the housing authority and to provide the applicant with one of them.
- On 21 March and 6 April 2005 the bailiff fined the
Head of the housing authority for the failure to enforce the judgment
of 27 March 2002.
- On 26 January 2006 the housing authority and the
applicant's representative concluded a social tenancy agreement by
which a flat was allocated to the applicant. On 9 February 2006 the
applicant signed a document by which she accepted the proposed
accommodation.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of
the judgment of 27 March 2002. The Court
considers that these complaints fall 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). These
Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... 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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
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 acknowledged that
the judgment of 27 March 2002 had not been enforced in time. They
further conceded that the applicant's rights set out in Article 6 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated as a
result of the non-enforcement of the final judgment.
- The applicant maintained her
claims.
- The Court observes that on 27
March 2002 the applicant obtained the judgment, by which domestic
authorities had to provide her with a flat. The judgment
became enforceable on 9 April 2002 when it acquired legal force.
It remained without enforcement for more than three years after its
entry into force. No justification was advanced by the Government
which acknowledged a violation of the Convention.
20. The Court has frequently found
violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 in cases raising similar issues to the ones in the
present case (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, ECHR
2005 ..., Mikryukov v. Russia, no. 7363/04, 8 December
2005).
- Having examined the material
submitted to it, the Court sees no reason for reaching a different
conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the
subject, 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 her right to a court and
prevented her from receiving a flat she had reasonably expected to
receive.
- There has accordingly been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
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 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government considered that the applicant's claim
was excessive and unreasonable.
- The Court considers that the applicant must have
suffered certain distress and frustration resulting from the State's
authorities' failure to enforce a judgment in her favour. However,
the amount claimed appears excessive. The Court takes into account
the award made by the Court in the Burdov case (cited above, §
15), the nature of the award at stake in the present case, length of
the enforcement proceedings and other relevant aspects. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, it 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
reimbursement of her costs and expenses incurred before the domestic
authorities and the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that
there is no call to award her any sum on this account.
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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- 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 and one hundred euros) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles
at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that
may be chargeable;
(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 15 February 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Loukis
Loucaides
Registrar President
