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

overnment's Decree No. 143 of 22 February 2001 and, subsequently, by Decree No. 666 of 22 September 2002, entrusting execution to the Ministry of Finance (see further details in Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, Nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, §§ 33 - 39, 21 June 2007).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
in respect of non-enforcement of the judgment
of 4 August 1998

15. The applicant complained that despite the judgment he had not been discharged on the ground of the command's failure to fulfil their obligations. Insofar as relevant, this Article reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
16. The Government argued that by operation of law this judgment could only be enforced after the applicant had been provided with housing. In this respect, they referred to the absence of flats outside Noginsk-9 at the command's disposal in 1998 - 2002 and to the applicant's refusal either to participate in "State housing certificates" programme or to obtain a flat in Noginsk-9.
17. 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).
18. In the case at hand, the judgment remained unenforced for more than four years: from 4 August 1998 till 27 June 2003, the day on which the applicant was discharged for another reason and the enforcement, thus, was overtaken by events. Such a long delay appears unreasonable. The Court is not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Government to justify this delay.
19. In particular, the Court has not at its disposal a domestic judicial decision or other authority that would confirm that under domestic law the applicant should necessarily have accepted the housing certificate or a flat in Noginsk-9, in order to have the judgment of 4 August 1998 properly enforced. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that the applicant obstructed the only possible mode of enforcement of the judgment (see, by contrast, Filonenko v. Russia, No. 22094/04, § 20, 31 July 2008). Besides, the scarcity of flats cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance (see Lotorevich v. Russia, No. 16048/06, § 35, 22 January 2009). Lastly, where a judgment is against the State, the State must take the initiative to enforce it (see Akashev v. Russia, No. 30616/05, §§ 21 - 23, 12 June 2008): it does not transpire from the case-file that the authorities took timely action to comply with the judgment of 4 August 1998.
20. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6
of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
in respect of enforcement of the judgment
of 21 June 2002

21. The applicant complained about delayed enforcement of the judgment of 21 June 2001. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which has been quoted above, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
"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

> 1 2 3 4