FIRST SECTION
CASE OF
DREVAL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no.
40075/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 May 2013
This judgment is final but
it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dreval and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
40075/03) 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 three Russian nationals, Ms Irina Vladimirovna Dreval, Ms
Iya Mikhailovna Dreval and Mr Victor Mikhailovich Kuritsyn (“the applicants”),
on 26 November 2003.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr Pavel
Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On 1 March 2006 the application was communicated to
the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was
allocated to a Committee.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants were born in 1971, 1948, and 1946
respectively and live in Syktyvkar.
On 14 February 2003 the Syktyvkar Town Court
granted the applicants’ claim against the local administration for provision of
municipal housing and ordered to provide each of them with one room. The court
found, inter alia, that one of the walls of the building where the
applicants resided was destroyed and the building was at risk of collapse. The
parties did not appeal and the judgment became final.
On 19 March 2003 the local administration informed the applicants that the judgment in their favour could not be
enforced because neither housing nor appropriate budget funds were available.
On 5 May 2003 the enforcement proceedings were
opened.
On 16 May 2003 the local administration informed
the applicants that the judgment could not be enforced because of the lack of
housing.
On 17 December 2004 the first applicant was
offered a two-room flat. The applicant accepted the offer.
On 25 February 2005 the second and third
applicants were offered a two-room flat. The applicants accepted.
On 23 and 24 June 2005 the bailiffs decided to
close the enforcement proceedings as the judgement of 14 February 2003 being
duly enforced. It appears that the applicants did not appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicants complained about continued non-enforcement
of the judgment of 14 February 2003. They invoked Articles 6 of the Convention
which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...
tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that this complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long
delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III).
The Court observes that in the present case the
judgement of 14 February 2003 remained unenforced approximately for one
year and eight months in respect of the first applicant and for one year and
ten months in respect of the second and third applicants.
The Court takes note of the fact that the
Government in their observations acknowledged that the delays occurred in the enforcement
proceedings breached the applicants’ rights under the Convention.
Having regard to the above, it follows that there
has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The second and third applicants complained that
the judgment in their favour had not been properly enforced in that the flat
they had been provided with did not conform to the criteria set forth in the
judgment. Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far
as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is
no 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 §§ 1, 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
All the
applicants claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) to be paid to each of them in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. The second and third applicants also claimed EUR
20,864 in respect of pecuniary damage for the incomplete enforcement of the
judgment of 14 February 2003.
The Government
submitted that the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage were
excessive. As regards the second and third applicants’ claim for pecuniary
damage, the Government found them unsubstantiated.
In respect of the second and third applicants’
claim for pecuniary damage, the Court does not discern any causal link between
the violation found and the damage alleged. The Court
therefore rejects it.
The Court finds, however, that all the
applicants may be considered to have suffered some degree of frustration and
distress as a result of the violation found in this case. Deciding on an
equitable basis, it awards each of the applicants EUR 1,500 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicants did not make any claim for costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
Accordingly, the Court makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate 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
1. Declares admissible the complaint
concerning delays in enforcement proceedings and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the
applicants, within three months, EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into the currency of the respondent State 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 May 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Elisabeth
Steiner
Deputy Registrar President
