CASE OF KUKSA AGAINST RUSSIA AND 32 OTHER CASES
Doc ref: 35259/04, 25749/05, 12239/03, 32048/03, 5950/04, 35786/04, 24229/03, 24086/04, 2109/07, 40075/03, 12... • ECHR ID: 001-199695
Document date: December 5, 2019
- Inbound citations: 163
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 16
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
Resolution CM/ ResDH (2019) 329 Execution of the judgment s of the European Court of Human Rights 33 cases against Russian Federation
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 December 2019 at the 1 362 nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases (see list in Appendix 2) and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having noted that the just satisfaction, where awarded, has been paid by the government of the respondent State and that all domestic judicial decisions have been enforced (see Appendix 3) ;
Noting with satisfaction the general measures adopted by the Russian authorities in respect of the problem of delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions imposing on the State obligations to provide housing to several categories of population (see Appendix 1 );
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix 1
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments
I. Case summaries
These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to access to court and the right to enjoyment of possessions due to the authorities’ failure to enforce or serious delay in enforcing domestic judgments ordering them to provide the applicants with housing (violation of Article 6 , paragraph 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The applicants in these cases had obtained judicial decisions to provide them with housing due to their status as acting or retired judges, as former participants in the Chernobyl cleaning-up operations, or as members of categories of persons entitled by law to State-funded housing by law. In a number of these cases, the Court also found a lack of an effective remedy in respect of the non-enforcement of the judicial decisions (violation of Article 13).
Other violations: In the Sypchenko case, the Court also found a violation on account of the quashing of a final and binding judicial decision in supervisory review proceedings (violations of Article 6 , paragraph 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
II. Individual measures
In all cases in which the European Court awarded just satisfaction, the relevant sums were paid to the applicants or their representatives under conditions accepted by them (see Appendix 3 ) .
As regards the enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, in all cases where a domestic judicial decision in the applicant’s favour was pending enforcement at the time of the adoption of the judgment by the European Court, that decision has been subsequently enforced.
As regards the case concerning a quashing of a final judicial decision in the applicant’s favour in supervisory review proceedings, the violation found was of a procedural nature and did not require a reopening of the domestic proceedings. Indeed, the applicant does not appear to have sought it.
Against this background, no other individual measures appear to be necessary.
III. General measures
A. Measures taken in response to the violations of Article 6 , paragraph 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
M embers of the judiciary have been provided with State-funded housing in the framework of a special-purpose federal programme “Development of Russia’s judicial system” since 2013 . For example, pursuant to Federal Law no. 459-FZ of 29 November 2018 (amended as of 18 July 2019) “On the Federal Budget for 2019 and for the Planned Period of 2020 and 2021”, RUB 750.9 million (approximately 10.6 million euros) are envisaged for 2019-2021 for allocation of subsidies for purchasing living premises by those employees of the courts and of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and its territorial bodies, who are in need of improvement of their living conditions.
Former participants in the Chernobyl cleaning-up operations , as well as other persons entitled to State-funded housing by law , have been provided with housing since 2007 in the framework of a special-purpose federal programme “Housing”. By 2016, the number of unexecuted judicial decisions awarding housing to the above-mentioned former participants in the cleaning-up operations dropped to ten per cent of all such awards.
More general ly , Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no. 1710 of 30 December 2017 (amended as of 11 September 2019) “On Approval of the State Programme “Providing Nationals of the Russian Federation with Affordable and Comfortable Housing and Utility Services”” allocated substantial amounts of funds progressively increasing each year: from RUB 231.8 b il l io n (approximately 3.3 b il l io n euros) in 2019 to RUB 358 ,9 b il l io n (approximately 5.1 b il l io n euros) in 2025.
Since the problem of non-enforcement at issue was mostly related to the lack of funds, the amounts allocated should ensure that all relevant decisions are from now on enforced in a timely manner.
B. Measures taken in response to the violations of Article 13
1. Compensatory remedy
The 2010 Compensation Act (“On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time”), which was adopted by the Russian Federation in response to the Burdov (No.2) pilot judgment, entitles a party concerned to bring an action for compensation of the violation of his or her right to enforcement within a reasonable time of a judgment establishing a debt to be recovered from the State budgets.
However, the provisions of this Act, as originally adopted, did not cover cases of delayed enforcement of obligations in kind, as a result of which the European Court adopted the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment. In response to that judgment . O n 19 December 2016 the Russian Federation adopted a federal law amending the 2010 Compensation Act, thus extending the right to obtain compensation for the lack of speedy enforcement of domestic judicial decisions concerning the State’s pecuniary obligations in kind, at issue in the present group of cases . The law entered into force on 1 January 2017.
2. Acceleratory remedies
Loading citations...a) The power to order punitive damages was introduced to the Civil Code on 1 June 2015 (Article 308.3). The courts can award such damages against a debtor who has failed to comply in due time with his or her obligations in kind. These damages can also be awarded against public or municipal bodies and will thus serve as an additional remedy in cases of delayed enforcement of the kind of obligations which are at issue in these cases. The issues related to application of Article 308.3 of the Civil Code in judicial practice have been resolved by Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court N o.7 of 24 March 2016 “On Courts’ Application of Particular Provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Regarding Liability for Violation of Obligations”.
b) T he Code of Administrative Procedure (“the CAP”) adopted on 8 March 2015 provid es for the examination of, inter alia , complaints arising out of lengthy non-enforcement of judicial decisions. In particular, the following elements have been provided for: a more active role of the courts; redistribution of the burden of proof with the obligation on state authorities to provide documents and materials related to the alleged violation; penal sanctions for failure to provide materials to the court without valid reasons; participation in the proceedings of the body whose officials have committed the alleged violations and/or the body vested with the powers for elimination thereof; possibility for the court to apply preventive protection measures including interim measures; benefit schemes for payment of court duties; accelerated examination of administrative cases; possibility to deliver special decisions aiming at elimination of violations of the law established, etc.
The legal positions aimed at increasing the effectiveness of execution of court judgments imposing pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary obligations on state authorities, local self-government authorities and their officials are formulated in the Plenum Ruling of the Supreme Court no. 50 of 17 November 2015 “On Courts’ Application of the Law during Consideration of Some Issues Emerging in the Course of Enforcement Proceedings” and are also reflected in the “Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation” N o. 1 (2018).
3. Assessment of the remedies
At its 1288 th meeting (June 2017) (DH) the Committee examined the execution of the pilot judgment Gerasimov and Others concerning delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions imposing on the State obligations in kind. In its decision adopted at that meeting, the Committee welcomed the setting up of the aforementioned compensatory remedy and the acceleratory remedy provided for by the Civil Code deeming them prima facie effective, and closed its examination of the part concerning the adoption of remedies (see point 3 of the decision).
C. Publication and dissemination
The judgments of the European Court were translated, published and disseminated to all the authorities concerned, often with explanatory notes and recommendations.
D. Other violations found
The general measures in response to the finding of violations on account of the quashing of final domestic judicial decisions in supervisory review proceedings have been taken in the context of the Ryabykh group of cases, the supervision of which was closed by the Committee of Ministers with Final Resolution CM/ ResDH (2017)83.
IV. Conclusion
The g overnment considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases and that these measures will prevent similar violations in future. The Russian Federation has, therefore, complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention .
Appendix 2
List of cases
Application
Case
Judgment of
Final on
35259/04
KUKSA
15/06/2006
15/09/2006
25749/05
ANTONOVA
25/09/2008
26/01/2009
12239/03
BABYNIN
25/07/2017
25/07/2017
32048/03
BEZZOUBIKOVA
10/02/2009
10/05/2009
5950/04
BLINOV AND BLINOVA
30/04/2009
06/11/2009
35786/04
BOLOTINY
16/07/2015
16/07/2015
24229/03
BRAGA, TIMOFEYEV AND KIRYUSHKINA
06/03/2008
29/09/2008
24086/04
BULYCHEVY
08/04/2010
04/10/2010
2109/07+
BUTENKO AND OTHERS
20/05/2010
20/08/2010
40075/03
DREVAL AND OTHERS
02/05/2013
02/05/2013
12541/05
IVAN NOVIKOV
03/04/2008
29/09/2008
29063/05
KARDASHIN AND OTHERS
23/10/2008
23/01/2009
26365/05
KAZANTSEVA
23/10/2008
23/01/2009
2746/05
KOPNIN AND OTHERS
28/05/2014
28/08/2014
26089/02
KORNEV
28/09/2006
28/12/2006
18557/06
LYKOV
12/07/2007
12/10/2007
26216/07
LYUBOV STETSENKO
17/04/2014
17/07/2014
5271/05
LYUDMILA DUBINSKAYA
04/12/2008
04/03/2009
21074/03
MAKAROV
25/01/2007
25/04/2007
41302/02
MALINOVSKIY
07/07/2005
07/10/2005
3344/04
MAYAMSIN
27/03/2008
29/09/2008
7363/04
MIKRYUKOV
08/12/2005
08/03/2006
9253/06
MIZYUK
12/04/2007
12/07/2007
6859/02
NAGOVITSYN
24/01/2008
24/04/2008
38103/05
NEVOLIN
12/07/2007
31/03/2008
38029/05
PRIVALIKHIN
12/05/2010
12/08/2010
38918/02
SHAROV
12/06/2008
12/09/2008
703/02
SHILOV AND BAYKOVA
29/06/2006
29/09/2006
17701/03
SITNITSKIYE
12/06/2008
12/09/2008
38368/04
SYPCHENKO
01/03/2007
01/06/2007
13910/04
TARASOV
28/09/2006
12/02/2007
18762/06
TELYATYEVA
12/07/2007
12/10/2007
11931/03
TETERINY
30/06/2005
30/09/2005
Appendix 3
List of payment of just satisfaction and of enforcement of domestic judicial decisions
No.
App.
Case
Judgment final on
Sums awarded by the Court (in EUR, unless specified otherwise)
Payment deadline
Date of payment of the sums awarded by the Court
Payment of default interest
Enforcement of the domestic judicial decision at the origin of the violation
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
35259/04
Kuksa
15/09/2006
3,900
-
66
15/12/2006
07/12/2006
n/a
Enforced
25749/05
Antonova
26/01/2009
-
3,900
-
26/04/2009
28/04/2009
Not significant (EUR 1.92 not paid)
Enforced
12239/03
Babynin
25/07/2017
-
4,200
-
25/10/2017
Paid
n/a (lack of bank account details)
Enforced
32048/03
Bezzubikova
10/05/2009
-
3,000
-
10/08/2009
22/01/2010
Paid
Enforced
5950/04
Blinov and Blinova
06/11/2009
-
4,000
500
06/02/2010
15/01/2010
n/a
N/a (the applicants withdrew their claims in the course of the supervisory review proceedings)
35786/04
Bolotiny
16/07/2015
390
6,000
-
16/10/2015
07/09/2015
n/a
Enforced
24229/03
Braga, Timofeyev and Kiryushkina
29/09/2008
-
8,600
-
29/12/2008
18/12/2008
n/a
Enforced
24086/04
Bulychevy
04/10/2010
-
3,000
-
04/01/2011
04/05/2011
n/a (bank account details were provided after payment deadline)
Enforced
2109/07
Butenko and Others
20/05/2010
-
16,000
240
20/08/2010
03/12/2010
Paid
Enforced
40075/03
Dreval and Others
02/05/2013
-
4,500
-
02/08/2013
29/11/2013
Paid
E nforced
12541/05
Ivan Novikov
29/09/2008
-
3,100
-
29/12/2008
18/12/2008
n/a
Enforced
29063/05
Kardashin and Others
23/01/2009
-
10,500
300
23/04/2009
14/04/2009
n/a
Enforced
26365/05
Kazantseva
23/01/2009
-
2,300
-
23/04/2009
17/04/2009
n/a
Enforced
2746/05
Kopnin and Others
28/08/2014
-
3,500
-
28/11/2014
08/10/2014
n/a
Enforced
26089/02
Kornev
28/12/2006
-
3,100
-
28/03/2007
30/03/2007
Not significant (EUR 1.32 not paid)
Enforced
18557/06
Lykov
12/01/2008
-
2,300
-
12/04/2008
29/10/2007
n/a
Enforced
26216/07
Lyubov Stetsenko
17/07/2014
-
6,000
-
17/10/2014
17/12/2014
Paid
Enforced
5271/05
Lyudmila Dubinskaya
04/03/2009
-
1,600
-
04/06/2009
04/09/2009
Paid
Enforced
21074/03
Makarov
25/04/2007
-
3,900
-
25/07/2007
03/08/2007
Paid
Enforced
41302/02
Malinovskiy
07/10/2005
-
3,000
-
07/01/2006
02/12/2005
n/a
Enforced
3344/04
Mayamsin
29/09/2008
-
3,900
-
29/12/2008
07/11/2008
n/a
Enforced
7363/04
Mikryukov
08/03/2006
-
4,000
-
08/06/2006
07/06/2006
n/a
Enforced
9253/06
Mizyuk
12/07/2007
-
2,000
-
12/10/2007
28/09/2007
n/a
Enforced
6859/02
Nagovitsyn
24/04/2008
-
2,100
-
24/07/2008
25/06/2008
n/a
Enforced
38103/05
Nevolin
31/03/2008
-
1,200
-
31/07/2008
28/05/2008
n/a
Enforced
38029/05
Privalikhin
12/08/2010
-
2,300
-
12/11/2010
03/12/2010
Paid
Enforced
38918/02
Sharov
12/09/2008
-
3,000
900
12/12/2008
24/10/2008
n/a
Enforced
703/02
Shilov and Baykova
29/09/2006
-
600-
29/12/2006
27/11/2006
n/a
Enforced
17701/03
Sitnitskiye
12/09/2008
-
-
-
-
-
-
Enforced
38368/04
Sypchenko
01/06/2007
-
1,500
-
01/09/2007
27/07/2007
n/a
Enforced
13910/04
Tarasov
12/02/2007
-
2,400
300
12/05/2007
10/04/2007
n/a
Enforced
18762/06
Telyatyeva
12/10/2007
-
1,600
800
12/01/2008
03/12/2007
n/a
Enforced
11931/03
Teteriny
30/09/2005
-
3,000
-
30/12/2005
26/12/2005
n/a
Enforcement abandoned due to a subsequent friendly settlement with municipal authorities