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

he offered flat was too big for the applicant's family, because his wife and son had another flat. In 2002 - 03 courts upheld this decision.
13. On 2 June 2004 the command offered the applicant a flat in Moscow. On 25 February 2005 the applicant accepted this offer. On 5 May 2005 city authorities invited the applicant to formalise his ownership, but he avoided this procedure because he considered the flat too small. He sued his command, and on 18 October 2005 the Moscow Garrison Military Court found that the flat in Moscow met the conditions of the judgment of 13 February 2001.
14. On 5 December 2005 the applicant was removed from the roster.
15. In September 2006 the applicant agreed to formalise his ownership of the flat in Moscow and moved in.

II. Relevant domestic law

16. Under section 23 § 1 of the Federal Law on the Status of Servicemen, servicemen who have served ten years and more and whose housing needs to be improved, cannot be discharged against their will without the provision of such housing.
17. According to the Ruling of the Constitutional Court 322-O of 30 September 2004, after expiry of a serviceman's contract and in the absence of his written agreement to discharge without provision of housing, he should be considered as serving voluntarily only until the provision of housing.

THE LAW

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

18. The applicant complained under Articles 6, 8, and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 about the delayed enforcement of the judgment 13 February 2001. 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

19. The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. Article 6 had not applied to the proceedings in question because they had concerned military service. The applicant had abused his right of petition by misrepresenting facts. The judgment had been enforced within a reasonable time. The applicant had unreasonably rejected offers, overstated his family's housing needs, and pursued his command with litigation.
Even though the judgment had not expressly specified this, the flat had had to be provided in Moscow. The applicant's command had not had such flats available immediately and had done all it could to obtain them. The command had shown good will to settle the case by offering the flat in Vatutinki-1 (the actual station of the applicant's unit).
20. The applicant maintained his complaint. Article 6 did apply to the proceedings in question. He had not misrepresented any facts. The judgment had remained unenforced because the flat in Moscow had not satisfied his family's housing needs. He had had to reject the flats in Vatutinki-1, Krasnogorsk, and Domodedovo because they had been outside Moscow's administrative border. The command had i

> 1 2 3 4