Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.01.2009 «Дело Левищев (Levishchev) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF LEVISHCHEV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 34672/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 29.I.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Levishchev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Anatoly Kovler,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle {Berro-Lefevre} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Слово на национальном языке набрано латинским шрифтом и выделено фигурными скобками.

Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 January 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 34672/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Sergey Vasilyevich Levishchev ("the applicant"), on 13 October 2003.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 3 May 2007 the President of the Fifth Section decided to communicate the complaints concerning non-enforcement of a judgment and compulsory labour 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

I. The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Klin, a town in the Moscow Region.
5. At the material time the applicant was a captain of the Army. His unit was stationed in Vatutinki-1 near Moscow.
6. In 2000 the applicant requested an early discharge for health reasons. Under domestic law, long-serving servicemen in need of better housing (the applicant met these conditions) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When asking for discharge, the applicant specified that he wished to receive the housing.
7. On 14 December 2000 the command offered the applicant a flat in Vatutinki-1, but he rejected this offer and sued his command.
8. On 13 February 2001 the Moscow Garrison Military Court ordered the command to provide the applicant's family with housing at his place of duty without specifying the exact location. In addition, the court ordered to discharge the applicant, to pay outstanding service-related benefits, to pay 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of legal costs, and to pay RUB 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. This judgment became binding on 16 March 2001 and was enforced as follows.
9. On 26 March 2001 the command offered the applicant a flat in Krasnogorsk, but he rejected this offer.
10. On April 2001 the applicant was discharged from active duty but was retained on the roster pending the provision of the housing. In April 2001 the command paid the benefits. In May 2001 the command paid the costs and damages.
11. On 21 November 2001 the command offered the applicant a flat in Domodedovo, but he rejected this offer.
12. On 21 March 2002 the command offered the applicant a flat in Zelenograd, and he accepted this offer. However, higher authorities in the Ministry of Defence found that t

> 1 2 3 ... 4