Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Бутенко и другие (Butenko and others) против России» [англ.]

dar Region could only use the monetary funds allocated from the federal budget".
12. The authorities sought to alter the mode of enforcement of the judgments from in-kind provision of flats to delivery of housing certificates. By a decision of 6 April 2009, upheld on appeal on 7 May 2009, the District Court refused to change the mode of execution of the judgments.

II. Relevant domestic law

13. Section 14 (3) of the Law On Social Protection of Citizens Exposed to Radiation as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Explosion (No. 1224-I of 15 May 1991, as amended at the material time), as in force at the material time, set out that disabled victims of the Chernobyl explosion were to be granted social housing within three months from submitting an appropriate application, provided that their existing accommodation did not comply with the minimum housing standards.
14. Under Section 13 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997, the enforcement proceedings should be completed within two months upon receipt of the writ of enforcement by the bailiff.

THE LAW

I. Joinder of the applications

15. Given that these four applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

16. The applicants complained that despite the judgments they had not been provided with housing in good time. The Court will examine these complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public 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

17. The Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies. They relied, in particular, on three examples from domestic practice (case of Khakimovy, case of Smetanko, case of Shubin) where the complainants had been awarded substantial amounts of compensation for non-pecuniary damage (ranging from 65,000 to 200,000 Russian Roubles) caused by prolonged non-enforcement of binding civil judgments.
18. The Court reiterates that it earlier concluded that there was no effective domestic remedy in Russia, either preventive or compensatory, that allowed for adequate and sufficient redress in the event of violations of the Convention on account of prolonged non-enforcement of judicial decisions delivered against the State or its entities (see Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, § 117, ECHR 2009-...).
19. In the case at hand the Court accepts, to the Government's advantage, that in the three cited examples from domestic practice the complainants were awarded compensation of non-pecuniary damage in the amounts that are not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases.
20. However, the existence of such isolated examples cannot either alter the Court's conclusion reached in the Burdov (No. 2) judgment mentioned above, or newly demonstrate that this remedy was sufficiently certain in practice so as to offer the applicants reasonable prospects of success as required by the Convention. Thus, the Government's argument as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should b

> 1 2 3 4 ... 5 6