THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\nI.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE\u00a01 OF PROTOCOL NO.\u00a01 TO THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007 in his favour referring to Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.1 to the Convention, which read as follows:<\/p>\n
Article 6<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01<\/p>\n
\u201cEvery 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.<\/p>\n
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.\u201d<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0The Government initially submitted that the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour had remained unenforced. They acknowledged their obligations under the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment (cited above) and stated that they would deploy all means to enforce the judgments which had remained without execution or resolve the issues by any appropriate means. In their further observations they submitted that the applicant had failed to send the judgment to the debtor, had not applied for the housing certificate and had not produced documents requested from him by the Housing Department of Moscow, despite repeated notifications. They noted that the Department had not received a copy of the judgment and that the applicant had not applied for a writ of execution in respect of the judgment in his favour.<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained his complaint. He argued that the domestic court had duly sent the copy of the judgment to the debtor. He had submitted the requisite documents, such as a dismissal decision and documents concerning his flat in Znamensk, on at least two occasions, in 1998 and 2002. On the basis of those documents, in 2002 the file concerning his placement on the list of persons in need of housing had been formed. As regards the numerous notifications allegedly sent to him, he noted that both the letter of5\u00a0May 2015 (see paragraph\u00a013 above) and the Government\u2019s respective submissions contained an error in the flat number, \u201c118\u201d instead of \u201c18\u201d. He concluded that the notifications must have been sent by the authorities to a non-existent address in Znamensk. He only received one request to provide documents, sent to his correct address on 10\u00a0February 2011, and submitted his reply together with the requisite documents on 26\u00a0March 2011, that is without an undue delay. Accordingly, the decision to exclude the applicant from the list of persons in need of housing had been groundless.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n22.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes the Government\u2019s submission that the debtor authority did not receive a copy of the judgment, as well as their argument that the applicant had not applied for a writ of execution in respect of the judgment in his favour and had not provided requisite documents despite several \u201cnotifications\u201d.<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the Government may be understood to argue that the applicant\u2019s behaviour wasuncooperative and constituted an obstacle to timely enforcement of a judgment, the Court reiterates its constant position that a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Metaxas v.\u00a0Greece, no.\u00a08415\/02, \u00a7\u00a019, 27\u00a0May 2004). In such cases, the defendant State authority must be duly noti\ufb01ed of the judgment and is thus well placed to take all necessary initiatives to comply with it or to transmit it to another competent State authority responsible for execution (see Akashev v. Russia, no.\u00a030616\/05, \u00a7\u00a021, 12\u00a0June 2008, and Burdov v.\u00a0Russia (no.\u00a02), no.\u00a033509\/04, \u00a7\u00a068, ECHR 2009). Consequently, the burden to ensure compliance with a judgment against the State lies primarily with the State authorities starting from the date on which the judgment becomes binding and enforceable (see Burdov, cited above, \u00a7 69).<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0Turning first to the Government\u2019s submission that the debtor authority had not received a copy of the judgment, the Court finds it at least surprising that the defendant authority which participated in the housing proceedings and made detailed written submissions but chose not to participate in the hearing of 9\u00a0April 2007 had subsequently displayed no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. In any event, the Court notes from a certificate of 4\u00a0July 2017 by the Znamensk Town Court that on 6\u00a0June 2007 the court duly sent a copy of the final judgment by fax and mail to the debtor authority, and the fax transmission was recorded as successful by the court\u2019s registry (see paragraph\u00a010 above). In the absence of any further comments or clarifications from the Government, the Court concludes that the defendant State authority was duly noti\ufb01ed of the judgment and was thus well placed to take all necessary initiatives to comply with it (see Akashev, cited above, \u00a7\u00a021).<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0Further, in the above circumstances there is no reason to depart from the Court\u2019s constant position that the applicant was not expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Metaxas, cited above).<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, as regards the applicant\u2019s alleged failure to produce documents, the Court has accepted that a successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt, be it during a voluntary execution of a judgment by the State or during its enforcement by compulsory means (see Shvedov v. Russia, no.\u00a069306\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a029\u201337, 20\u00a0October 2005). Accordingly, it is not unreasonable that the authorities request the applicant to produce additional documents, such as bank details, to allow or speed up the execution of a judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, Kosmidis and Kosmidou v.\u00a0Greece, no.\u00a032141\/04, \u00a7\u00a024, 8\u00a0November 2007). The requirement of the creditor\u2019s cooperation must not, however, go beyond what is strictly necessary and, in any event, does not relieve the authorities of their obligation under the Convention to take timely action of their own motion, on the basis of the information available to them, with a view to honouring the judgment against the State (see Burdov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a069).<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0First, it is unclear whether the requests (notifications) were sent to the applicant in the context of the enforcement of the judgment of which, in the Government\u2019s submission, the debtor authority had been unaware. In any event, the Court notes that the Government did not submit copies of the respective notifications and did not provide details as to their contents or dates. The Court also notes the applicant\u2019s observation concerning a possible error in his postal address contained in the housing authority\u2019s submissions (see paragraph\u00a013 above). In any event, the Court is only in possession of one request dated February 2011 sent to the applicant\u2019s correct address. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court accepts the applicant\u2019s argument that he had sent the required documents to the requesting authority on 26\u00a0March 2011, as supported by a copy of the postal receipt (see paragraph\u00a012 above). The Court concludes that the applicant provided the requisite information without an undue delay (see, by way of contrast, Gadzhikhanov and Saukov v. Russia, nos. 10511\/08 and 5866\/09, \u00a7\u00a028, 31\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0The Court therefore concludes that the applicant complied with the minimal requirement of cooperation (contrast see, by way of contrast, Gadzhikhanov and Saukov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a021-30)and dismisses the objection to this effect.<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the final judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007 in the applicant\u2019s favour has not been enforced to date, that is for more than ten years. According to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, such delay isprima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Convention (see, among others, Gerasimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0171, andKozodoyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a02701\/04 and 4\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a011, 15\u00a0January 2009).<\/p>\n
31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has frequently found violations of Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among many others, Gerasimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0171-74, with further references).<\/p>\n
32.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In particular, in so far as they may be understood to argue that the non\u2011enforcement was due to the applicant\u2019s conduct, the Court has already rejected this argument (see paragraphs\u00a024-28 above). In any event, in so far as the applicant\u2019s failure to provide documents could be concerned, it appears that the only request for such documents in the Court\u2019s possession was sent to the applicant in 2011, that is more than three years after the judgment\u2019s entry into force.<\/p>\n
33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds that by failing, for a significant period of time, to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of his right to a court, and that such failure constituted an unjustified interference with the applicant\u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.<\/p>\n
34.\u00a0\u00a0There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 to the Convention in the present case on account of the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007 in the applicant\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
35.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant may be understood to complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement. Relevant Convention provision reads as follows:<\/p>\n
Article 13<\/p>\n
\u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n
36.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already noted the existence of a new domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced in the wake of the pilot judgment by Federal Law No. 450-FZ amending the Compensation Act of 2010. That statute, which entered into force on 1\u00a0January 2017, enables those concerned to seek compensation for damage sustained as a result of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments ordering the domestic authorities to fulfil various obligations in kind (see Kamneva and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), nos.\u00a035555\/05 and 6\u00a0others, 2\u00a0May 2017). The Court has found that the amended Compensation Act in principle meets the criteria set out in the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment and provides the applicants with a potentially effective remedy for their non-enforcement complaint (see Shtolts and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a087-116 and 123).<\/p>\n
37.\u00a0\u00a0Even though the remedy was \u2013 and still is \u2013 available to the applicant, the Court reiterates that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court, to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0230).<\/p>\n
38.\u00a0\u00a0However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article\u00a013 in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Korotyayeva and Others, nos.\u00a013122\/11 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a040, 18\u00a0July 2017, and Tkhyegepso and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a044387\/04 and 11\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a021-24, 25\u00a0October 2011).<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
39.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n40.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 500,000 Russian roubles, that is approximately 7,278 euros (EUR) as converted into euros at the rate applicable on the date of the submission of the observations, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He also insisted that the Government were under an obligation to provide him with housing in Moscow free of charge, in accordance with the domestic law, and submitted that he and his wife, old\u2011age pensioners of fragile health, did not have time and physical strength to undergo the procedure for the implementation of the housing certificate.He noted in this respect that since 2007 his health had deteriorated and he had acquired a right to additional housing on account of his second-degree disability.<\/p>\n
41.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disputed the claims as excessive and unfounded.<\/p>\n
42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that it has found a violation of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judicial award as specified in the operative part of the final judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007. Accordingly, any outstanding aspects of the applicant\u2019s right to housing, including the evolution of his personal situation and any subsequent entitlement to additional housing, fall outside the scope of the present case. The Court further observes that the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour has not been enforced and also notes the Government\u2019s acknowledgment of their obligations under the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment and their intention to deploy all means to enforce the judgment which had remained without execution or resolve the issue by any appropriate means (see paragraph\u00a020 above). Indeed, in so far as the judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007 remains in force, the Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article\u00a06 is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the position he would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, \u00a7 12, Series A no. 85). Having regard to the violation found, the Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well. It therefore considers that the Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007.<\/p>\n
43.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection, the Court points out that its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature. In general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Shofman v. Russia, no.\u00a074826\/01, \u00a7\u00a053, 24\u00a0November 2005, with further references). By finding a violation of Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 in the present case, the Court has established the Government\u2019s obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant\u2019s individual situation, that is to ensure compliance with the applicant\u2019s enforceable claim under the judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007 (see, for instance, Humbatov v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no. 13652\/06, \u00a7\u00a038, 3\u00a0December 2009, withfurtherreferences). The decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no.\u00a033343\/03, \u00a7\u00a066, 26\u00a0July 2007). The Court, however, emphasises that any measures adopted must be compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court\u2019s judgment (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no.\u00a071503\/01, \u00a7\u00a0202, ECHR 2004-II, with further references).<\/p>\n
44.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further awards the applicant EUR\u00a06,000 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and dismisses the remainder of his claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n45.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not make a claim in respect of costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n46.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007 admissible;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention on account of the non\u2011enforcement of the judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article\u00a013 of the Convention;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the respondent State must secure without delay and by appropriate means the enforcement of the domestic judgment of 9\u00a0April 2007 in the applicant\u2019s favour;<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three monthsthe following amounts,to be converted into the currency of the respondent Stateat the rate applicable at the date of settlement, EUR\u00a06,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amountat a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 December 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 BrankoLubarda
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n