Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Volnykh ("the applicant"), on 4 March 2003.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 12 March 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kropotkin, a town in the Krasnodar Region of Russia.
5. The applicant is a retired serviceman. In 1992 when the applicant was still serving, his military unit signed a contract with a building enterprise of the Kropotkin Town Authority for the construction of an apartment house for servicemen, the applicant included. In 1993 the military unit was disbanded, and the applicant retired.
6. Not having received the flat, the applicant sued the enterprise. On 24 November 1997 the Kropotkin Town Court ordered the Town Authority to provide the applicant with a three-room flat in the 199-apartment house No. 19, 20, 21 that was being constructed in Microdistrict No. 1 of Kropotkin. This judgment became binding on an unspecified date in 1997.
7. In 1997 the authority informed bailiffs that the construction had been delayed by a difficult socio-economic situation in the country. In 1999 the authority informed the bailiffs that the construction would be finished during the first three months of 2000.
8. Frustrated with the delay, the applicant asked the court to change the mode of enforcement to a lump-sum payment of 250,000 Russian roubles. The court refused that change because the applicant had failed to prove the impossibility of a literal enforcement. The court noted that the judgment had not specified a time frame for the provision of the flat, and that the construction was in progress. The court also noted that a lump-sum payment would have prejudiced other public expenditure.
THE LAW
Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
of the Convention
9. The applicant complained that the non-provision of the flat breached his right to protection of property as provided in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. Insofar as relevant, this Article 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 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
10. The Government argued that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded. Under domestic law in force at the material time, the applicant had had no preferential right to a flat, and if he wished to receive it he should have applied to the Enlistment Office of Kropotkin, something he had not done. It had been the applicant's own choice to benefit from the contract scheme. The contract had been void because of formal defects. There had been no evidence that the applicant had put money down on the flat.
The judgment could not have been enforced because the apartment house had still not been completed, and because in the meantime the building enterprise had undergone liquidation proceedings. The judgment had not specified a time frame of
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
