CASE OF LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova
4. The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in St Petersburg. 5. On 17 February 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Yakutskiy Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) (“the Town Court”) against the Government of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) for providing him with a housing subsidy and for a compensation of non-pecuniary damage. 6. On 2 February 2001 the Town Court dismissed the claims. 7. On 23 April 2001 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) (“the Supreme Court”). 8. On 7 April 2005, following the applicant’s supervisory review appeal, the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 23 April 2001. The Supreme Court remitted the case for a new examination by the court of cassation instance for the applicant had not been duly summoned to the hearing of 23 April 2001. 9. On 11 May 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of 2 February 2001. 10. On 26 January 2006, upon the applicant’s supervisory review appeal, the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 2 February 2001 and the decision of 11 May 2005 as it found that the lower courts misjudged the facts of the case and erred in application of the national law. 11. On 17 May 2006 the Town Court again dismissed the applicant’s claims. 12. On 21 August 2006 the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of 17 May 2006 on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination, as the lower court had misapplied the national law. 13. On 18 December 2006 the Town Court ordered the Government of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) to pay the applicant 683,619 Russian roubles (RUB) from the federal budget funds allocated for providing the housing subsidies for persons leaving the high north regions. 14. On 12 February 2007 the Supreme Court found the decision of 18 December 2006 to award the applicant money unlawful and unreasoned, quashed the decision and yet again remitted the case for a new examination. 15. Twice, on 26 April 2007 and 7 September 2007, the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. 16. Each time, on 18 July 2007 and 19 May 2008, respectively, the judgment of the Town Court was set aside on appeal, and the case was remitted for a new examination. In the first set of the proceedings, the appellate court found the judgment unlawful, and requested to bring into the proceedings the municipality “Nizhnekolymskiy rayon”. In the second set of the proceedings, the appellate court found that the applicant had not been duly summoned to the hearing, and that the municipality should have been joined to the proceedings as a defendant rather than a third party. 17. On 23 September 2008 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. It ordered the Government of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) to pay the applicant RUB 1,812,838.10 from the federal budget funds allocated for the housing subsidies for persons leaving the high north regions. 18. On 17 November 2008 the judgment of 23 September 2008 was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court. 19. On 25 November 2010 the applicant requested the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of the Town Court of 23 September 2008. 20. On 10 February 2010 a writ of execution was issued. 21. On unspecified dates, the applicant submitted the writ of execution, first, to the Department of the Federal Treasury and, second, to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya). 22. On 13 April and 8 June 2011 respectively the writ of execution was returned to the applicant as the debtor had no accounts at these bodies. 23. On 29 July 2011 the Department of the Federal Bailiffs’ Service for the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) (“the Bailiffs’ Service) received the writ of execution and opened the enforcement proceedings. 24. On 24 August 2011 the Head of the Bailiffs’ Service ordered to set aside the above decision to open the enforcement proceedings. 25. On 30 August 2011 the decision of 29 July 2011 was set aside and the Bailiffs’ Service refused institution of enforcement proceedings with the reasoning that as the enforcement document required recovery of public budgetary funds, it could not be enforced by the Bailiffs’ Service. 26. On 8 February 2012 the District Court clarified the judgment of 23 September 2008. It explained that the debt had to be recovered from the Government of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) represented by the Federal Treasury of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) from the federal budget sources allocated for the housing subsidies for persons leaving the high north regions. 27. On an unspecified date the applicant on one more occasion sent the writ of execution to the Department of the Federal Treasury. On 26 April 2012 the writ was returned to him for the debtor had no account at the Treasury. 28. On 10 July 2012 the Bailiffs’ Service received the writ of execution and opened the enforcement proceedings. 29. On 10 September 2012 the enforcement proceedings were terminated for the debtor had no property that the debt could be recovered from. 30. On the same date the bailiff responsible for the execution of the judgment issued an act establishing that there were grounds for returning the writ of execution to the creditor. According to this document, the debtor, the Government of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya), was a collective executive body, without the status of a legal entity or any property on their balance sheet. 31. The judgment of 23 September 2008 remained unenforced. 32. On 29 November 2010 the applicant lodged a claim under the Compensation Act (see the Domestic Law part below). He complained that the civil proceedings in his case against the Government of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) had been unreasonably long, and asked for a compensation in that respect. 33. On 20 December 2010 a judge of the Supreme Court of Russia ordered that the application should be returned to the applicant with the reasoning that the proceedings complained of ended on 17 November 2008, i.e. before the entry into force of the Compensation Act. 34. On 15 March 2011 the applicant’s special appeal against the above decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Russia. The court agreed with the judge that had passed the decision of 20 December 2010 that the end date of the proceedings was the date of the decision of 17 November 2008 to uphold the judgment of 23 September 2008 on appeal, while the subsequent period when the applicant applied for supervisory review of that decisions should not be included in the overall length of the proceedings.