EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BULYCHEVY v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 24086/04)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 8.IV.2010)
--------------------------------
<*> 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 Bulychevy v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 24086/04) 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 three Russian nationals, Mrs Vera Nikolayevna Bulycheva, Mr Vladimir Vasilyevich Bulychev and Mr Vasiliy Vladimirovich Bulychev ("the applicants") on 5 June 2004, 5 June 2004 and 13 February 2006, respectively.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the former representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 3 September 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 Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
4. The applicants were born in 1956, 1956 and 1983, respectively, and live in Lipetsk.
5. The applicants are a married couple and their son.
A. Housing dispute
6. The applicants lived in a flat that in 1992 became unsuitable for living owing to break-down of the sewage system. In July 1993 the first and second applicants, also acting on behalf of their then underage son, brought court proceedings seeking housing from the Lipetsk Town Council ("Town Council"). By judgment of 21 October 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk ("District Court") acknowledged that the applicants' flat was unsuitable for living and ordered the Town Council to provide them with a "comfortable housing suitable for four persons in compliance with the applicable legislation".
7. On 17 January 2000 the Lipetsk Regional Court, acting on appeal, amended the judgment. It specified, in particular, that "the flat should be in a brick building situated within the town centre". The appeal court also awarded each applicant 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damage.
B. Enforcement proceedings
8. On an unspecified date the applicants submitted a writ of execution to the Sovetskiy District Bailiffs' Service of Lipetsk. On 28 February 2000 an authorised bailiff opened enforcement proceedings.
9. Further to the applicants' complaint, on 9 April 2001 the District Court declared unlawful the bailiff's failure to enforce the judgment.
10. On 25 September and 2 October 2001 t
> 1 2 3 ... 4 5