Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.05.2010 «Дело Привалихин (Privalikhin) против России» [англ.]

1991, the property rights in respect of all State housing in the Novosibirsk Region had been transferred to municipal authorities.
12. On 20 April 2004 the Tsentralny District Court of Novosibirsk rejected the authorities' request to adjourn the execution of the final judgment.
13. On 24 September 2004 and 19 November 2004 the same court rejected the applicant's requests to award him compensation which would allow him to purchase a flat.
14. The prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the bailiff on 11 December 2004. On 19 January 2005, in response to the applicant's complaint, the Berdsk Town Court found the acts of the bailiff in the applicant's enforcement proceedings arbitrary and unlawful and ordered the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings in this respect. On 25 May 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court once again urged the prosecutor to open criminal proceedings.
15. On 1 February 2006 the Berdsk Town Council sent a letter to the applicant, offering to provide him with a three-room flat of 77.5 sq. metres in total surface.
16. By letter of 2 February 2006 the applicant sent a letter to the bailiffs in which he agreed to this offer.
17. On 13 February 2006 the Novosibirsk Regional Administration allocated 1,500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for acquisition of a flat for the applicant.
18. By decision of 17 May 2006 the bailiffs terminated the proceedings in the case as the judgment of 21 April 2003, as upheld on 17 June 2003, had been enforced.
19. According to the parties, the applicant was granted a three-room flat of 77.5 sq. metres in total surface under a social tenancy agreement.

II. Relevant domestic law

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

21. The applicant complained that despite the judgment he had not been provided with housing in good time. The Court will examine this complaint 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... 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

22. The Government noted that the judgment in question had already been enforced. They further accepted that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour had taken place but argued that it had been justified in view of a great number of large-scale welfare programmes administered by the State at the material time.
23. The applicant maintained his complaints. The applicant admitted that the authorities had granted him a flat under a social tenancy agreement but argued that he ought to have received property rights to the flat instead.
24. The Court observes that the Government did not contest applicability of Article 6 of the Convention owing to the applicant's status as a

> 1 2 3 4