CASE OF BABYNIN v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra
4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Staryy Oskol. 5. The applicant took part in the cleaning up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. 6. On 5 July 2002 the Staryy Oskol Town Court of the Belgorod Region granted the applicant’s action against the Belgorod Regional Administration and awarded him and his family, comprising two members, a flat in the town of Staryy Oskol and 3,000 Russian roubles (approximately 100 euros) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The representative of the Regional Administration did not attend the hearing: in writing he had requested the Town Court to adjudicate the case in his absence. 7. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 15 July 2002. 8. On 19 August 2002 the Staryy Oskol Town Court issued a writ of execution and enforcement proceedings were instituted. 9. On 9 October 2002 the Belgorod Regional Administration lodged a statement of appeal against the judgment of 5 July 2002. The Administration also asked the Town Court to restore the ten-day time-limit for lodging the appeal. The Administration claimed that it had received a copy of the judgment of 5 July 2002 by fax on 8 October 2002. The Administration asked to stop the enforcement proceedings. 10. The applicant insisted that there had been no reason to restore the time-limit. He noted that a copy of the judgment had been forwarded to the Regional Administration at the end of July 2002. 11. On 14 October 2002 the Staryy Oskol Town Court restored the time-limit for lodging the appeal, accepted the Administration’s statement of appeal and stopped the enforcement proceedings. 12. On 19 November 2002 the Belgorod Regional Court examined the Administration’s appeal, quashed the judgment of 5 July 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Town Court. 13. On 20 January 2003 the Staryy Oskol Town Court, in the new examination of the case, accepted the applicant’s action in part. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows: “Order that the Belgorod Regional Administration should provide ... Mr Babynin G.A. and his family with housing premises, which satisfy sanitary and technical requirements, in their turn according to the housing waiting list of families having persons with disabilities and individuals who had taken part in the cleaning operation at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Dismiss [the claim] for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.” 14. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 31 January 2003. 15. On 13 February 2003 a writ of execution was issued and enforcement proceedings were instituted. 16. According to the applicant, from 5 to 12 March 2004 a group of five people, including the applicant, began a hunger strike to protest against the poor level of welfare protection provided for the Chernobyl victims. 17. On 16 April 2004 the mayor of Staryy Oskol decided to provide the applicant with a flat measuring 55,05 m². 18. On 21 April 2004 the applicant received from the mayor an occupancy voucher in respect of the flat assigned to him. He found the flat satisfactory.