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

civil servant (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], No. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-IV). The Court further notes that the proceedings brought by the applicant against the State concerned provision of a flat. The Court has no doubts that the proceedings in question were civil within the meaning of Article 6. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Article 6 is applicable in the present case.
25. The Court notes that this complaint 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

26. 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). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia, No. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
27. Turning to the case at hand, the Court notes that, by virtue of the judgment of 21 April 2003, as upheld on 17 June 2003, the authorities were to put at the applicant's disposal a flat with certain characteristics in a State or municipal housing. Contrary to the applicant's allegations, the judgment did not require the authorities to grant him ownership of a particular flat, but rather to conclude a tenancy agreement between the competent authority and the applicant, acting as the principal tenant on behalf of himself and the members of his family.
28. In the present case the enforcement lasted two years and eleven months: from the day the judgment became binding (17 June 2003) to the day when the bailiffs declared, upon the applicant's consent to accept the flat, that the judgment had been executed and terminated the enforcement proceedings (17 May 2006).
29. The Court considers that this period is in itself incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. The Government did not put forward any argument that might lead the Court to a different conclusion. The Court reiterates that lack at the material time of resources (such as housing, in particular) cannot by itself justify the authorities' failure to honour the judgment debt in good time (see Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, § 70, ECHR 2009-...).
30. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has 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

31. 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

32. The applicant claimed 1,718,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively.
33. The Government submitted that the applicant's claims were excessive and groundless.
34. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the extensive amount of the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant must have suffered distress because of the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in good time. However, the amounts claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage appear excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that

> 1 2 3 4