Communicated on 2 March 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 23211/04 Yuriy Valentinovich SHIKUNOV against Russia lodged on 24 May 2004

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Valentinovich Shikunov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Krasnoarmeysk , Moscow Region.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant sued Federal State Unitary Enterprise NII “ Geodeziya ” ( ФГУП НИИ « Геодезия ») to obtain housing. On 8 October 2002 the Pushkinskiy Town Court of Moscow Region ordered the enterprise to provide the applicant with a flat. The judgment entered into force on 18 October 2002.

At a certain point the enterprise was reorganised and became a treasury enterprise ( « казенное предприятие »).

On 10 February 2006 the same court changed the obligation in kind for a monetary one and ordered the enterprise to pay the applicant 37,674 euros (EUR). The decision entered in to force on 28 June 2006.

By decisions of the same court listed in the Appendix the award was index-linked.

The applicant was paid EUR 43,747 euros on 23 December 2009 and EUR 6,615 on 1 February 2010.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about delays in enforcement of the court awards in his favour.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Are the debts owed by Federal State Unitary Enterprise NII “ Geodeziya ” ( ФГУП НИИ « Геодезия ») and Federal Treasury Enterprise NII “ Geodeziya ” ( ФКП НИИ « Геодезия ») to the applicant imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and, if so, to what extent ?

2. Have the final judgments in the applicant ’ s favour been enforced fully and in a timely manner? If not, has this violated the applicant ’ s right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia , no s . 39483/05 and 40527/10 , 9 October 2014 )?

3. If those debts are not imputable to the State (see Question 1 above), did the State authorities diligently assist the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour (see Kunashko v. Russia , no. 36337/03, §§ 38 ‑ 49, 17 December 2009, with further references)?

No.

Date of judgment

Date of entry into force

Amount of award in euros (EUR)

1.

07/10/2007

17/10/2007

2,907

2.

08/11/2007

18/11/2007

7,369

3.

18/11/2008

28/11/2008

17,523

4.

29/10/2009

28/11/2008

6,402

5.

13/05/2010

20/07/2010

971