FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 32626/09 Georgiy Grygorovych LES against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Jovan Ilievski, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 2009,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Georgiy Grygorovych Les, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Simferopol. He was represented by Mr S. Ponomaryov, a lawyer practising in Belogorsk.

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. On 14 October 2004 the applicant’s employer, the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, put the applicant’s name on a waiting list to obtain accommodation to which he was entitled according to the relevant law as a military serviceman.

4. On 20 December 2004 the applicant was discharged from military service due to redundancy (reduction of personnel numbers).

5. On 17 April 2007 the applicant’s name was put on a priority housing waiting list. This priority list was designated for people who were entitled to receive accommodation without waiting their turn on the general housing list and the applicant, as a person discharged as a result of redundancy, was entitled to the placement on the priority list.

6. By a judgment of 12 January 2009, the Administrative Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Administrative Court”) found that the Ministry of Defence had to provide the applicant with accommodation.

7. On 13 April 2009 the State Bailiffs initiated enforcement proceedings.

8 . On 10 July 2012 the Administrative Court explained that according to its judgment of 12 January 2009 the Ministry of Defence was required to provide the applicant with accommodation when his turn on the housing list came. That judgment was upheld on appeal on 25 September 2012 and on 16 October 2012 the High Administrative Court refused leave for appeal in cassation.

9. On 12 April 2013 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as, according to the judgment of 10 July 2012, the judgment of 12 January 2009 could not be executed until it was the applicant’s turn on the housing list.

10. On 14 May 2013 the Administrative Court declared the decision terminating the enforcement proceedings null and void, since the law did not include any provision prohibiting the execution of the judgment requiring to provide the applicant with accommodation when his turn on the housing list came. This judgment was upheld by the Sevastopol Administrative Court of Appeal on 6 August 2013.

11. According to the most recent information from the applicant, on 2 September 2013 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.

12. On 5 January 2013 the applicant instituted proceedings against the State Bailiffs’ Service and the State Treasury for non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement of the judgment. On 25 March 2013 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv rejected this claim having found the applicant’s allegations that the judgment had not been executed unfounded. The decision was upheld by Kyiv Court of Appeal on 8 October 2013 and by the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters on 4 December 2013.

13. Relevant domestic law can be found in Gayevskiy v. Ukraine ((dec.) no. 60725/00, 11 January 2005) .

COMPLAINTS

14. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 12 January 2009 was not enforced.

THE LAW

15. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which read, insofar as relevant, as follows:

Article 6

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair hearing ... by a[n] tribunal ...”

Article 13

“Everyone 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.”

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.

...”

16. The Court notes that the applicant essentially complained that he had been refused absolute priority in the allocation of housing even though he had a court judgment requiring it.

17. The Court observes that confusion has apparently arisen on the part of the applicant between the placement on the priority housing list, which the applicant achieved, and any further priority that could be given within that list. In their final analysis, the domestic authorities interpreted the judgment in question to mean that the authorities’ obligation under the judgment was limited to the applicant’s placement on the list. However, the applicant interpreted this judgment more broadly to mean that he should have been given priority accommodation before the other persons on the list.

18. The Court reiterates that it is not its task to substitute itself for domestic jurisdictions. It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of the interpretation of domestic law (see, for example , Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, § 116, 15 March 2018).

19. The requirement to provide accommodation immediately, ahead of the priority housing needs of other people, pursuant to the judgment of 12 January 2009, was not established in the domestic proceedings. Moreover, by the judgment of 10 July 2012 the Administrative Court explained that according to its judgment of 12 January 2009 the Ministry of Defence had to provide the applicant with accommodation in accordance with his turn on the housing list (see paragraph 8 above).

20. The Court considers that the applicant has not established sufficient elements to cast doubt on the interpretation given in this matter by the domestic authorities. There is no indication that the authorities failed to comply with the judgment in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Gayevskiy v. Ukraine (dec.), cited above ).

21. In view of the above, the Court finds that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 7 October 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Martina Keller Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Deputy Registrar President