CASE OF ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 39680/08 and 2 others -“
see appended list)
29 March 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Orlov and Others v. Russia,The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis LÃ³pez Guerra, President,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 8 March 2018,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government ("the Government").
THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The applicants complained of the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 Â§ 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 16. The applicants complained principally of the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 Â§ 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read as follows:
Article 6 Â§ 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ..."
"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.
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."7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a "hearing" 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. 18357/91, Â§ 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-‘II).8. In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, no. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.9. Having regard to the nature of the judicial awards in the applicants' favour (see the appended table for details of court orders), the Court considers that the applicants had, by virtue of these judgments, a "legitimate expectation" to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.10. Having 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants' favour.11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 Â§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.12. The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-‘enforcement. The 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, which enables those concerned to seek compensation for damage sustained as a result of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 35555/05 and 6 others, 2 May 2017). Even though the remedy was - or still is - 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, Â§ 230).13. However, 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' complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, no. 44387/04 and 11 others, Â§Â§ 21-24, 25 October 2011). This ruling is without prejudice to the Court's future assessment of the new remedy.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. In application no. 39680/08, the applicant also raised another complaint under the same Articles of the Convention, concerning another judgment.15. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 Â§ 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If 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."17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-‘law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, Â§Â§ 187-200, 1 July 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. As concerns the applicant in application no. 39680/08, he did not claim any just satisfaction and the Court therefore sees no reason to make an award.18. The 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the application no. 39680/08 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 Â§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;
4. Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that 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.
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 March 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtLuis LÃ³pez Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Application raising complaints under Article 6 Â§ 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
Date of introduction
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant /household
Vladimir Lvovich Orlov
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma, 02/08/2002, amended by the final judgment of the Kostroma Regional Court on 17/11/2008, and then quashed by way of supervisory review on 06/04/2009
6 year(s) and
7 month(s) and
" ... the Administration of Kostroma to provide [the applicant] with housing ... ";
Sergey Gennadyevich Bologov
Irina Nikolayevna Bologova
Razumovskiy Andrey Viktorovich
Rubtsovk City Court of the Altay Region, 24/01/2008
1 year(s) and
1 month(s) and
"the Rubtsovsk Town Council to provide [the applicants and their minor child] with a flat comprising 2 rooms and corresponding to all technical and sanitary requirements"
Tayfe Usmanovna Badamshina
Bazarnosyzganskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk Region, 27/02/2009
11 month(s) and 19 day(s)
"... [local administration] to provide [the applicant's apartment] with [heat energy] ..."
 Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.