THIRD SECTION<\/p>\n
CASE OF ANANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 79757\/12)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n22 January 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Anankin and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Branko Lubarda, President, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no.\u00a079757\/12) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by fifty Russian nationals on 12\u00a0December 2012.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0On 15\u00a0March 2015 the applicant Mr Konstantin Vasilyevich Bazhenov died. His widow, Ms Leyla Khalilyevna Bazhenova, expressed an intention to pursue the application in her late husband\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants and Ms L.Kh.\u00a0Bazhnova were represented by Mr\u00a0K.\u00a0Markin, a lawyer practising in Velikiy Novgorod. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr\u00a0G.\u00a0Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0In the wake of the pilot judgment in the case of Gerasimov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, on 30\u00a0March 2015 the complaints concerning the non\u2011enforcement of a judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour and the lack of an effective remedy against the non-enforcement were communicated to the Government for settlement or resolution (see Gerasimov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a029920\/05 and 10\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0230-31 and point\u00a013 of the operative part, 1\u00a0July 2014).The Court adjourned for two years, that is until 1\u00a0October 2016, the proceedings in all cases concerning non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations in kind on the State authorities (ibid., \u00a7\u00a0232 and point\u00a014 of the operative part).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted unilateral declarations in respect of the applicants listed in Appendixes II and III, provided observations in respect of some of the applicant\u2019s complaints and on 29\u00a0September 2016 advised the Court that they were unable to settle the present application in the part concerning Ms Zakharova and Mr Kiyukov within the above time-limit, as the domestic judgments in their favour had remained unenforced at the material time.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the expiry of the above-mentioned adjournment period, the Court has decided to resume the examination of the application. The Court informed the parties at the communication stage that the case, subject to settled case-law, would be allocated to the Committee.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are fifty Russian nationals. Their dates of birth and places of residence are listed in Appendixes\u00a0I, II, III and IV.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Facts common to all applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are former military servicemen. They all obtained final court decisions in their favour ordering military units to provide them with housing before their dismissal from military service. The respective court orders\u2019 details, such as dates of the judgments and their entry into force and the respective court\u2019s names, are summarised in the Appendixes.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0In some cases the defendants were subsequently replaced by the Housing Provision Department of the Ministry of Defense.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The judgment in case of Mr Nazarov has remained unenforced to date. The judgments in favour of other applicants were enforced on the dates listed in the Appendixes below.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Specific circumstances of some cases<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Medinskiy and Vedernikov<\/em><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Pursuant to the judgment in favour of Mr Medinskiy (Appendix\u00a0III) the authorities decided to allocate a flat to the applicant on 6\u00a0November 2015. According to the transfer and acceptance act, the applicant accepted the flat on 20\u00a0November 2015. On 21\u00a0January 2016 he registered his title to the flat.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Pursuant to the judgment in favour of Mr Vedernikov (Appendix\u00a0III) the authorities decided to allocate a flat to the applicant on 27\u00a0October 2015. According to the transfer and acceptance act, the applicant accepted the flat on 13\u00a0November 2015. On 11\u00a0January 2016 he registered his title to the flat.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Nazarov<\/em><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Since 1999 Mr Nazarov owned a \u00bc share in a flat (15 sq.m.) in Pushkino, the Moscow Region. In 2007 the housing commission of the military unit considered his housing situation, noted his title to a share in the flat and decided to put the applicant on the list of persons in need of housing.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 13\u00a0January 2009 the Military Court of the Moscow Garrison ordered the housing commission of the military unit to provide him with housing in Moscow, as indicated in the appended table. On 27\u00a0January 2011 the same court replaced the defendant by the Housing Provision Department of the Ministry of Defense.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Between 18\u00a0August 2009 and 24\u00a0June 2011 the applicant had a \u00bd\u00a0share in tenancy of a flat in the Smolensk Region.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 25\u00a0April 2013 the Hosing Department of the Ministry of Defense found that overall size of the applicant\u2019s living premises (see paragraphs\u00a013 and\u00a015 above) exceeded the housing norms for the respective region. Accordingly, the debtor authority decided to strike his name off the list of persons in need of housing.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 24\u00a0February 2014 the Military Court of the Moscow Garrison and on 26\u00a0June 2014 the appeal court upheld lawfulness of the above decision.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0In the meantime, the defendant twice applied to the domestic courts with a request for termination of the enforcement proceedings, as the applicant\u2019s name had been removed from the list of persons in need of housing, and there had \u201cno longer been a possibility to enforce the judgment\u201d.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 29\u00a0November 2013 the Presnenskiy District Court allowed the request. On 14\u00a0April 2014 the Moscow City Court quashed the lower court\u2019s decision on appeal and issued a new ruling dismissing the request in full. The court found that the first-instance court had incorrectly interpreted the applicable law. There was no evidence that the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour could no longer be enforced. It was not quashed or amended. A \u201closs of a possibility to enforce\u201d should have been \u201cof an objective nature\u201d and could not be conditional on the circumstances depending on the debtor itself. The defendant\u2019s arguments were rather indicative of its disagreement with the court\u2019s findings in the judgment of 13\u00a0January 2009, but did not constitute a ground for termination of the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 23\u00a0December 2014 the first-instance court and on 4\u00a0September 2015 the Moscow City Court acting as an appeal instance rejected the defendant\u2019s new request to terminate the enforcement, based this time, inter alia, on the judgment of 24\u00a0February 2014 (see paragraph\u00a017 above). The courts gave the same reasons for the refusal as in the previous round of the similar proceedings.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0In 2016 the defendant again requested the court to terminate the enforcement proceedings, the application being lodged this time with a military court. The registry of the military court sent to the applicant notifications of the hearing by registered mail and by telegram to his known address. The notifications had not been delivered as the flat was closed. On 20\u00a0December 2016 the registry of the court informed the applicant of the date and place of the hearing by phone, as confirmed by a \u201ctelephonogram\u201d (a telephone conversation record). The applicant stated in the telephone conversation that he had no longer lived at the address he had provided to the court and had refused to give his new address.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 21\u00a0December 2016 the Military Court of the Moscow Garrison granted the request. With reference to the judgment of 24\u00a0February 2014 (see paragraph\u00a017 above) it found established that as of 25\u00a0April 2013 the applicant had no longer been in need of the housing, which meant that the defendant had no longer had a possibility to enforce the judgment of 2\u00a0February 2009.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was not present at the hearing. The decision specified that he had been duly notified of the date and time of the examination of the case.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 23\u00a0December 2016 he collected the telegram (see paragraph\u00a021 above) from the post office.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed, referring, inter alia, to the two earlier decisions on the same matter rejecting the defendant\u2019s similar requests, and argued that he had not been duly notified of the hearing in his case.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 16\u00a0February 2017 the Civil Division of the Military Court of the Moscow Command upheld the decision on appeal. It found, inter alia, that the defendant\u2019s prolonged failure to take actions to enforce the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour did not have anybearing on the lawfulness of the decision to discontinue the enforcement, as since 2013 the applicant had no longer been entitled to State housing.The proceedings were held in written form.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the absence from the first-instance hearing, the appeal court noted that the notifications of the hearing had been sent to the applicant by registered mail and by telegram to his known address, buthad not been delivered as the flat had been closed and the applicant had failed to collect the telegram pursuant to a notification thereof. Further, on 20\u00a0December 2016 he was informed of the date and the place of the hearing by phone. The court also noted his reply in the telephone conversation that he had no longer lived at the address he had provided to the court, as well as his refusal to provide his new address, and rejected the complaint.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 3\u00a0May 2017 a judge of the Military Court of the Moscow Command rejected the applicant\u2019s first leave for cassation appeal. The judge found, in particular, that the decisions of the Presnenskiy District court referred to in paragraphs\u00a019 and 20 had not had a res judicata effect on the proceedings as the domestic law did not prohibit the debtor from lodging a repeated request for termination of the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 20\u00a0July 2017 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to grant leave for the second cassation appeal against the decision of 21\u00a0December 2016.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Bazenov\u2019s death and legal succession<\/em><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 15\u00a0March 2015 the applicant Mr Bazhenov (Appendix II) died. On 23\u00a0May 2015 his widow, Ms Leyla Khalilyevna Bazhenova, born on 13\u00a0July 1973, expressed a wish to maintain the application in his stead, and submitted a copy of the certificate confirming that she was her late husband\u2019s legal heir.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Withdrawal of complaints by two applicants<\/em><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0Two applicants, Mr Balyas and Mr Golovachev, withdrew their complaints on the dates specified in Appendix\u00a0IV.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0According to Article\u00a0359 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, enforcement proceedings are discontinued either by a court which had issued the writ of execution or a court of the bailiff\u2019s location.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Section\u00a043(2) of the 2007 Enforcement Act stipulates that a court terminates the enforcement proceedings if it is no longer possible to enforce a writ of execution obliging a debtor to perform or abstain from performing certain actions. A writ of execution in respect of which the enforcement proceedings have been discontinued is kept in the case file and cannot be re\u2011submitted for execution (section\u00a044(5) of the Act).<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant provisions of the Federal Law No.\u00a0450-FZ amending the Compensation Act of 2010, in force as of 1\u00a0January 2017 and extending the scope of the Compensation Act to cases of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments ordering the domestic authorities to fulfil various obligations in kind are summarised in Shtolts and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), nos.\u00a077056\/14<\/a> and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a031\u201141, 30\u00a0January 2018.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0COMPLAINTS BY MR BALYAS AND MR GOLOVACHEV<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court takes note of the submissions by the applicants\u2019 representative that Mr Balyas and Mr Golovachev wished to withdraw their applications and discontinue the proceedings before the Court (see Appendix\u00a0IV).<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list in so far as it concerns the complaints lodged by Mr Balyas and Mr Golovachev.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0LOCUS STANDI OF MS BAZHENOVA<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that Mr K.V. Bazhenov (Appendix\u00a0II) died after the communication, and that his widow, Ms L.K. Bazhenova, expressed a wish to maintain the case in her late husband\u2019s stead (see paragraph\u00a030 above).<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his heirs of next kin may in principle pursue the application on his behalf (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.\u00a047848\/08, \u00a7\u00a097, ECHR\u00a02014, with further references). Furthermore, in several Russian cases concerning non\u2011enforcement of court judgments in the applicant\u2019s favour, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see, among many others,Shiryayeva v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a021417\/04, \u00a7\u00a08, 13\u00a0July 2006).The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the case referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights the applicants sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see, as regards Article\u00a06 of the Convention, Malhous v.\u00a0the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no.\u00a033071\/06, 13\u00a0December 2000). Ms Bazhenova has submitted a succession certificate to prove that she was the late applicant\u2019s legal heir, and Government stated in unilateral declaration that the payment would be made to the legal successor of the deceased applicant.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court considers that Ms Bazhenova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in her late husband\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0NON-ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS BY THE APPLICANTS LISTED IN APPENDIX II<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicants listed in Appendix\u00a0II expressly agreed to the terms of the declarations made by the Government. The Court finds that such agreement shall be considered as a friendly settlement between the parties (see\u00a0C\u0113snieks v.\u00a0Latvia\u00a0(dec.), no.\u00a09278\/06, \u00a7\u00a034, 6\u00a0March 2012, and Bakal and Others v.\u00a0Turkey\u00a0(dec.), no.\u00a08243\/08, 5\u00a0June 2012).<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court therefore takes formal note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Court further considers that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 in fine of the Convention and Rule\u00a062\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0In any event the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the execution of the terms of the friendly settlement as set out in the present decision (Article\u00a039\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention and Rule\u00a043\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Rules of Court). Further, in any event the Court\u2019s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, the present application to its list of cases.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article\u00a039 of the Convention in so far as it concerns the applicants listed in Appendix\u00a0II.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0NON-ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS BY THE APPLICANTS LISTED IN APPENDIX III<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicants listed in Appendix II disagreed to the terms of the declarations made by the Government. All of them argued that the amounts proposed by the Government were insufficient. Two applicants, Mr Medinskiy and Mr Vedernikov, argued in addition that the delay of non-enforcement was incorrectly calculated in the Government\u2019s declarations: the Government considered that the enforcement ended on the dates when the decision to allocate specific flats to the applicants was issued by the debtors. The applicants maintained that the enforcement had ended on the dates of the formal registration of their titles to the respective flats.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article\u00a037 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph\u00a01 of that Article.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n \u201c… for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.\u201d<\/p>\n Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 in fine states:<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.\u201d<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of the judgment in the applicants\u2019 favour has been acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensation amounts offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific enforcement delay in the applicant\u2019s particular cases.As regards the two applicants\u2019 calculation of the execution delay, the Courtis rather inclined to consider the dates of the applicants\u2019 actual acceptance of the flats as the dates of enforcement which, in each case, happened about two weeks later than the dates referred to by the Government in their declarations (see paragraphs\u00a011 and 12 above). However, the Court is not prepared to reject the declarations on that ground only, provided that the respective delays ofenforcement exceeding five years and three months, in case of Mr\u00a0Medinskiy, and five years and ten months, in case of Mr\u00a0Vedernikov, were clearly and unequivocally acknowledged by the Government, and the remedial offers made by the Government to the two applicants arein any event adequate and comparable with the Court\u2019s awards in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Chervyakov and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.),nos.\u00a043443\/04 and 17 others, \u00a7\u00a022, 15\u00a0March 2015).<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0As to whether the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires the Court to continue the examination of the application, it notes that in a number of analogous cases the Court found that it was not required to continue the examination of the applications in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 in fine (see, for instance, Kamneva and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), nos.\u00a035555\/05 and 6\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a030, 2\u00a0May 2017). The Court does not see any reason to depart from that approach in the present case.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention in so far as the non-enforcement complaint of the applicants listed in Appendix\u00a0III is concerned.<\/p>\n V.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE\u00a01 OF PROTOCOL No.\u00a01 IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANTS LISTED IN APPENDIX I<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantslisted in Appendix\u00a0I complained of the non\u2011enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied on Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention and on Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01, which read as follows:<\/p>\n Article 6 \u00a7 1<\/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 No. 1<\/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 A.\u00a0\u00a0Non\u2013enforcement complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disagreed. In particular, in case of Mr Nazarov, they argued that the judgment in his favour could not have been enforced, as he was no longer in need of housing.<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants maintained their complaints. In particular, Mr\u00a0Nazarov stated, as regards the housing owned by him since 1999, the authorities and the first-instance court issuing the initial judgment in his favour had been aware of that circumstance and took it into account. As regards the share in a flat in August 2009-2011, that circumstance arose after the judgment and was largely due to the authorities\u2019 failure to enforce the judgment of 13\u00a0January 2009 within the two-month time-limit set in the domestic law. In any event, the judgment in his favour had not been cancelled or amended and was to be enforced, as confirmed by the domestic courts\u2019 findings in 2014 and 2015. The courts on two occasions examined the arguments raised by the Government and rejected them as irrelevant.The 2016-2017 proceedings, brought by the defendant in military courts, were unfair, the decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings had been taken in disregard of the earlier courts\u2019 findings on the same matter, and the final judgment in his favour still had to be executed.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/em><\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded 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 2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/em><\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a \u201chearing\u201d for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no.\u00a018357\/91, \u00a7\u00a040, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011II).<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further considers that the applicants had, by virtue of the judgments awarding them with housing, a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.<\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0The judgments in favour of the four applicants either were enforced with delays exceeding respectively six, nineand twelve years, or, as in the case of Mr Nazarov, remain unenforced for more than nine years to date. Such delays are manifestly incompatible with the Convention requirements.<\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes the Government\u2019s argument to the effect that the judgment in favour of Mr Nazarov had no longer been enforceable as the applicant had been struck off the list of persons in need of housing. The Court notes, however, that the judgment of 13\u00a0January 2009 has not been annulled or modified. The Court furtherobserves that in 2014-2015 the argument referred to by the Government was twice raised in the domestic proceedings and rejected by the domestic courts which found that the defendant\u2019s disagreement with the initial court\u2019s ruling was not a reason to discontinue the enforcement and that, accordingly, the possibility to execute it had not been lost (see paragraphs\u00a019 and 20 above). However, in 2016 different courts examined the same set of facts and reached a different conclusion (see paragraph\u00a022 and 26 above). Withoutdelving into the issue of an alleged discrepancy between the courts\u2019 conclusions in the three sets of proceedings, the Court finds it sufficient to note that at least by 21\u00a0December 2016, when the authority\u2019s request to discontinue the enforcement was granted by the first instance court, the judgment of 13\u00a0January 2009 in the applicant\u2019s favour had already remained without execution for more than seven years (see, mutatis mutandis, Kotsar v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a025971\/03, \u00a7\u00a028, 29\u00a0January 2009). Given that the enforceability of the judgment was twice confirmed by the domestic courts in 2014 and 2015 (see paragraphs\u00a019 and 20 above), that period was attributable to the authorities and is clearly in breachof the Convention requirements.<\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers, in respect of the four applicants listed in Appendix\u00a0I, that the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the judicial decisions in the applicants\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints therefore disclose a breach of Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 in respect of thosefour applicants.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint about the breach of principle of legal certainty<\/strong><\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Nazarov (Appendix\u00a0I) complained that his right to a fair hearing was violated in the third set of proceedings concerning the debtor\u2019s request to terminate the enforcement, when the military court granted the debtor\u2019s claim despite the existence of a final decision of the district court in the proceedings between the same parties and concerning the same subject\u2011matter.<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0Bearing in mind its conclusions above concerning the non\u2011enforcement issue (see paragraphs\u00a062\u201264 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of this complaint.<\/p>\n VI.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants listed in Appendixes\u00a0I, II and III 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 68.\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.\u00a0450-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, cited above). 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 \u00a7\u00a0123).<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 70.\u00a0\u00a0On the other hand, 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 applicants\u2019 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 VII.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0By letter of 20\u00a0January 2017 Mr Nazarov further complained about the authorities\u2019 failure to properly notify him of the hearing 21\u00a0December 2016. Having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as the complaint falls within the Court\u2019s competence, it finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.<\/p>\n 72.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n VIII.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 73.\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>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantslisted in Appendix I claimed the amounts specified in the appendix in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 75.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested their claims as excessive and unreasonable.<\/p>\n 76.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others, cited above,\u00a7\u00a7\u00a0187\u2011200), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the amounts specified in Appendix\u00a0I, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and to reject the remainder of their claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantsdid not make a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 78.\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>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decidesto strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the complaints lodged by Mr Balyas and Mr Golovachev;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Decides that Ms Leyla Khalilyevna Bazhenova has standing to continue the proceedings in her late husband\u2019s stead;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declarations in respect of the non-enforcement complaints brought by the applicants listed in Appendix\u00a0III and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the non\u2011enforcement complaints brought by the applicants listed in Appendix\u00a0III;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Decides, in respect of the applicants listed in Appendix II, having regard to the terms of the Government\u2019s declarations, and the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein, and the applicants\u2019 acceptance of the terms of the declarations, to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a039 of the Convention in respect of the complaints about the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgments;<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the non-enforcement complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No. 1 lodged by the applicants listed in Appendix I admissible;<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 on account of the non-enforcement in favour of the judgments issued in favour of the applicants listed in Appendix I;<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint by Mr Nazarov about the alleged violation of the legal certainty principle in the third set of proceedings concerning the termination of the execution of the judgment in his favour;<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Decides, in respect of the complaint under Article\u00a013 of the Convention brought by the applicants listed in Appendixes\u00a0I, II and III concerning the alleged lack of an effective remedy against the non-enforcement that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of this complaint;<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay each applicant specified in Appendix\u00a0I, within three months, the amounts specified in the relevant part of Appendix\u00a0I, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\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 Branko Lubarda _______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX I<\/p>\n List of applicants in respect of whose cases no unilateral declaration was submitted<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nRegistrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n