THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF KONSTANTINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 60708\/13)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n5 February 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Konstantinova 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 15 January 2019,<\/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.\u00a060708\/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by five Russian nationals (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 15\u00a0July 2013.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G.\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 3.\u00a0\u00a0In the wake of the pilot judgment in the case of Gerasimov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, on 24\u00a0November 2014 the application was communicated to the Government for settlement or resolution (see Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, 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 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 29\u00a0September 2016 the Government advised the Court that they were unable to settle the application within the above time-limit, as the domestic judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour had remained unenforced.<\/p>\n 5.\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 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are five Russian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the Appendix. They are members of one family.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Since 1981 the applicants have lived in a flat in an apartment block provided to them under a social tenancy agreement by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. The landlord was under obligation to perform a major overhaul of the apartment block, and the applicants had to make regular payments for the major overhaul. They paid the amounts due. The overhaul had never been performed, allegedly since 1935.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On the dates listed in the Appendix the Orenburgskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region granted their claims, having noted from expert reports that the apartment block was \u201c64%\u2012dilapidated\u201d and its state was \u201cunsatisfactory\u201d, and that the flat was 64%\u2012dilapidated. The court found that the applicants\u2019living premises, as well as the common property of the apartment block required a major overhaul. The court ordered the Federal State Institution of the Privolzhsko-Uralskiy Military Circuitto perform themajor overhaul of the applicants\u2019 flat, as well as of the common property of the apartment block and of the \u201cdevices situated in the living premises and serving for provision of communal services\u201d in the apartment block,and to pay each applicant 3,000\u00a0Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicants\u2019 observations, on 9\u00a0November 2011 the Orenburgskiy District Court awarded the claimants RUB\u00a0490,155.43 (approximately11.681euros)of compensation of losses. They did not enclose a copy of the judgment or further details as to either the defendant, or the exact list of claimants, the scope of the judgment or its subsequent challenge on appeal by any of the parties.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0In 2012 Federal State Treasury Department (\u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435) of the Privolzhsko-Uralskiy Military Circuit became a legal successor of the debtor institution.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0In 2012 the applicants sued various authorities for penalties for several years of the non-enforcement. By the final judgment of 5\u00a0February 2013 the Orenburg Regional Court rejected their claims in full, having found that they were based on an incorrect interpretation of the domestic law and that the applicants had failed to submit a calculation of the penalty.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government, in December 2013 the applicant\u2019s house was included in a regional housing overhaul assistance program. The authorities prepared a project and the budget documentation, which were approved by the experts.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 13\u00a0April 2015 Ms Konstantinovaprivatized the flat and acquired a title to it.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government\u2019s latest observations of 31\u00a0May 2017, the judgments had remained unenforced at the material time.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a0210 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (The Burden of Maintaining the Property) provides that the owner bears the burden of maintaining the property in his ownership, unless otherwise stipulated by the law or by the contract.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a0158 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (Expenses of the owners of living premises in apartment blocks) sets out the modalities of the flats\u2019 owners\u2019 participation in major overhaul of the apartment blocks.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a016 of the Privatisation of Housing Act (Law no.\u00a01541-I of 4\u00a0July 1991, as in force at the material time) provided that privatisation of living premises requiring a major overhaul (\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0431\u0443\u044e\u0449\u0438\u0445\u043a\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0442\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e\u0440\u0435\u043c\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0430) was conducted in accordance with the Act. The former landlord remained under obligation to perform the major overhaul of a house in accordance with the norms on maintenance, exploitation and overhaul of the housing fund.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a030 of the Privatisation of Housing Act provides that the burden of maintenance of the living premises is on its owner.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0In the Review of Legislation and Courts\u2019 Practice for II Quarter 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia clarified that, in line with a systematic interpretation of Article\u00a016 of the Privatisation of Housing Act, Article\u00a0210 of the Civil Code and Article\u00a0158 of the Housing Code of Russia, once a landlord (a State or municipal authority) discharges of its obligation to perform a major overhaul of living premises and common property in an apartment block, the owners of the flats (including citizens who had privatized the flats) bear responsibility for subsequent major overhauls.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dealt with the question of constitutionality of Article\u00a016 of the Privatisation of Housing Act in its decisions on inadmissibility No.\u00a01334-O-O of 19\u00a0October 2010, No.\u00a0886\u2011O\u2011O of 14\u00a0July 2011 and No.\u00a0389-\u041e-\u041e of 1\u00a0March 2012, and ruled, in particular, as follows. In order to provide additional guarantees of the right to privatisation for citizens residing in housing requiring a major overhaul, the federal legislator set out a former landlord\u2019s obligation to perform major overhaul of a house in line with the maintenance, exploitation and overhaul norms (Article\u00a016 of the Act). This provision aimed at protection of the property and housing rights of the citizens. It applied to all former landlords of the housing subject to privatisation and requiring major overhaul, without any exception, irrespectively of the State or municipalities\u2019 previous ownership of the housing concerned.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 No.\u00a01 THERETO ON ACCOUNT OF NON\u2011ENFORCMENT<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantscomplained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour referring to Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.1, 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 22.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour had remained unenforced. They acknowledged their obligations under the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment 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 noted that since 13\u00a0April 2015 Ms Konstantinovahad been responsible for theoverhaul of the flatas the flat owner (see paragraph\u00a018 above), and that the authorities were taking all possible measures to enforce the judgments in the remaining parts (see paragraph\u00a012 above).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants maintained their complaints. They argued, in particular, that the authorities were under obligation to perform the major overhaul in accordance with Article\u00a016 of the Privatisation of Housing Act (see paragraph 17 above).<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a06 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/em><\/p>\n 24.\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 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Government advised the Court that the domestic judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour had remained unenforced by 31\u00a0March 2017. In the absence of any subsequent comments from the parties, the Court considers that the judgments have not been executed to date, that is for more than ten years.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes the Government\u2019s comment to the effect that in April 2015 the burden to conduct a major overhaul of the flat had been transferred to Ms Konstantinova as a result of the privatisation of the flat. The Court is not convinced by this argument. It appears from the relevant domestic law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Russia that such obligation is indeed transferred to the owner, but only once the former landlord performs its obligation to conduct the major overhaul of the living premises and the common property (see paragraph\u00a019 above) It is not disputed by the parties that the need for a major overhaul of both the flat and the common property was established by the domestic court on the basis of the expert reports and had not been discharged by the landlord by the time of privatisation (see paragraphs\u00a08, 12 and14 above). Further, it appears that the initial judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour ordering major overhaul of both the common property and the flat has never been modified and remains in force as issued in 2008. In the absence of any relevant domestic proceedings or further clarifications from the parties, the Court cannotaccept that the scope of the initial judgment had been affected by the privatisation of the flat, and considers that the State has remained under obligation to comply with the judgment in favour of Ms\u00a0Konstantinova in full. In any event, the Court cannot but note that by April 2015 the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour had already remained unenforced for seven years.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to its case-law on the matter, the periods of non\u2011enforcement and the nature of the obligation in kind at stake the present case (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0167-74), the Court considers that the delays in enforcement of the binding judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour fell short of the Convention requirements. By failing to comply, for years, with the enforceable judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour, the authorities breached the applicants\u2019 right to a court.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01<\/strong><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants further referred to Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 in respect of the non-enforcement complaint.Given its findings under Article\u00a06 above, as well as having regard to the nature of the domestic award made by national courts in the present case, the Court considers that there is no need for a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 (see, mutatis mutandis, LyubovStetsenko v.\u00a0Russia, no. 26216\/07, \u00a7\u00a092, 17\u00a0April 2014).<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants 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 31.\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 Gerasimov and Otherspilot 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 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 v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), nos.\u00a077056\/14<\/a> and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a087-116 and \u00a7\u00a0123, 30\u00a0January 2018).<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0Even though the remedy was \u2013 and still is \u2013 available to the applicants, 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 33.\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 III.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0In their letter of 24\u00a0December 2014 Ms Konstantinova and Ms\u00a0Lebedeva mentioned, for the first time, two other allegedly unenforced judgments in their favour dated 5\u00a0May 2001 and 5\u00a0December 2011 respectively, and complained about an allegedly insufficient amount of compensation awarded insubsequent domestic proceedings. The Court does not find it appropriate to examine any new matters raised by the applicants after communication of the application to the Government, as long as they do not constitute an elaboration upon the applicants\u2019 original complaints to the Court (see Yefimova v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a039786\/09, \u00a7\u00a0177, 19\u00a0February 2013, with further references). Given that no complaints in connection with those judgments were raised before the communication of the application and the decision to examine its merits at the same time as its admissibility, the scope of the present case is limited to the facts as they stood at the time of the communication. However, Ms Konstantinova has the opportunity to lodge a new application in respect of the above complaint (see RafigAliyev v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no.\u00a045875\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 6\u00a0December 2011).<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly, the applicants alleged a violation of Article\u00a014 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement. Having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as it falls within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 36.\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 37.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed 22,520 euros (EUR) in respect of penalty and a fine, calculated by them on the basis of the consumer price index and converted into euros \u201cat an average rate of50 Russian roubles for 1\u00a0euro\u201d, and EUR\u00a01,815.53 recovered from the applicants in mandatory payments for capital repair since 1996, in respect of pecuniary damage. They argued, in particular, that a domestic award of 9\u00a0November 2011 in respect of compensation of losses (see paragraph\u00a09 above) did not absolve the defendant from an obligation to pay the penalty and the fine, as well as to enforce the initial judgment.They further claimed the amounts ranging between EUR\u00a014,000 and EUR\u00a035,000 per applicant in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the claims for pecuniary damage were unreasonable as the authorities had been taking all possible measures to enforce the judgments and, in any event, were unsubstantiated. The Government further disputed the claims for non-pecuniary damage as excessive and having no basis in the Court\u2019s case-law.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes from the Government\u2019s submissions that the domestic judgment in the above case has remained unenforced to date (see paragraph\u00a022 above). The Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the unenforced judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour (see Pridatchenko and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a02191\/03 and 3\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a068, 21\u00a0June 2007, and Salikova v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a025270\/06, \u00a7\u00a083, 15\u00a0July 2010).<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court takes note of the applicants\u2019 submissions concerning the compensation proceedings of 9\u00a0November 2011 (see paragraph\u00a09). In any event, the Court agrees with the Government and considers that the applicants failed to substantiate their claims by making itemised calculations and producing invoices or other documentary evidence of the material loss they had allegedly sustained, and rejects their claims under this head.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicants must have suffered non\u2011pecuniary damage on account of the violation found. It awards them jointly, on an equitable basis, EUR\u00a07,800in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and rejects the remainder of the claims under this head.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants also claimed EUR\u00a04,484.4 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, arguing that they had paid that amount to Mr\u00a0V.V. Timoshenko, apparently a lawyer, for assistance in lodging their initial application and additional correspondence with the Court prior to the communication stage.They submitted a sub-section of their claims for costs and expenses subtitled \u201cact\u201d and referring to 15\u00a0July 2013 as the date of the agreementbut integrated in the text of their just satisfaction claims of 8\u00a0December 2016. The act contained signatures of Mr V.V. Timoshenko and the applicants, as well as Mr Timoshenko\u2019s timesheets which indicated that the latter has spent 8 hours to discuss and examine the case file and 100\u00a0hours to complete the application form, at the hourly rate of EUR\u00a041.5 per hour. The price included, inter alia, the translation services. The act stated that the applicants had paid Mr Timoshenko\u2019s services in two instalments in 2013 and 2014.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicants failed to provide any evidence confirming that those expenses had been actually incurred.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicants in this straightforward case were not represented in the proceedings before the Court andwere granted leave for self-representation pursuant to their own request of December 2016. The initial application was lodged in Russian, so no translation was required. The case file contains neither an authority form in respect of Mr\u00a0Timoshenko nor any other evidence of, or reference to his assistance in either the domestic proceedings or the proceedings before the Court, apart from the above-mentioned \u201cact\u201d. Further, they have not submitted a copy of the original agreement dated 15\u00a0July 2013, or any receipts or payment orders to prove that they had incurred those expenses.Regard being had to these considerations and to its case-law, the Court agrees with the Government and rejects the claim for costs and expenses in full.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 45.\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\u00a0Declaresthe non-enforcement complaint under Article\u00a06 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the complaints under this Convention provision inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaintsunder Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 and under Article\u00a013 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour referred to in the appended table;<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months, EUR\u00a07,800 (seven thousand eight hundred euros), 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\u2011pecuniary 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 amountsat a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 February 2019, 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 ______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\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\n\n
\n The applicants\u2019 names,<\/strong>
\nDates of birth and residence<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nDomestic judgments\u2019 dates, entry into force, notes<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n Vera Dmitriyevna KONSTANTINOVA<\/strong>
\n24\/05\/1945
\nPervomayskiy<\/td>\n12\/03\/2008
\n01\/04\/2008;
\nThe third applicant is referred to in the judgment as Aleksey ViktorovichSkred<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n YevgeniyViktorovich SKRED<\/strong>
\n29\/01\/1987
\nPervomayskiy\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n Aleksey Viktorovich TUMEL (SKRED)[1]<\/a><\/strong>
\n20\/03\/1988
\nPervomayskiy\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Konstantin Andreyevich LEBEDEV<\/strong>
\n14\/07\/1988
\nPervomayskiy\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n11\/04\/2008
\n29\/04\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n Yelena Aleksandrovna LEBEDEVA<\/strong>
\n07\/12\/1966
\nDonguzskaya\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n