Case of European Court of Human Rights, January 14, 2020 (case ANDREYEV v. RUSSIA)

Resolution Date:January 14, 2020

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)




(Application no. 28852/06)



14 January 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Andreyev v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,Helen Keller,María Elósegui, judges,and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2019,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:


  1. The case originated in an application (no. 28852/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Andreyev (“the applicant”), on 23 May 2006.

  2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr A. Fedorov, Deputy Minister of Justice, and then by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

  3. On 24 April 2017 the Government were given notice of the complaint under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the delayed enforcement of a domestic decision given against a municipal unitary enterprise (MUP) and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.


  4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Kotovsk.

  5. The applicant was a social tenant of an apartment in a four-flat apartment block under a social tenancy agreement with the local administration. In accordance with the agreement, the administration was obliged to perform maintenance and overhaul of the house and the adjacent territory, as well as a major overhaul of the flat. The applicant also had a service agreement in respect of the flat with municipal unitary enterprise Payment Processing Centre of Kotovsk (МУП “Единый расчетно‑кассовый центр”, “the MUP”), renamed in 2008 to Integrated Customer Service (“Служба единого заказчика”). It appears that in accordance with the service agreement the MUP was to ensure execution of the social tenancy agreement in the part concerning maintenance and overhaul.

  6. The company was set up in accordance with a decision of the administration of Kotovsk and had a right of economic control over assets assigned to it by the owner. It provided housing and communal services in the area. It was competent, in particular, to determine the need for communal services provision and overhaul of the housing in the area; to accept living premises in the municipal housing fund; to set out quality standards for maintenance work and to supervise compliance of the works actually performed with those requirements; to organise competitions for companies providing overhaul and maintenance services; to draft and conclude standard communal services’ supply agreements; to control the compliance with the terms of the tenancy and service agreements; to collect arrears in payments of communal charges and for various maintenance works; to make proposals for tariffs for housing maintenance and overhaul. The company defined the amounts of communal charges, as well as subsidies to citizens. On behalf of the local administration it concluded service agreements with housing owners. Until 2006 the company had issued national passports to local residents.

  7. On 14 April 2011 insolvency proceedings started in respect of the municipal unitary enterprise and on 29 March 2012 it was liquidated.

  8. On 14 August 2001, following the applicant’s civil claim, the Kotovsk Town Court of the Tambov Region (“the Town Court”) established, without further details, that the MUP had failed to ensure technical maintenance of the housing, as well as to perform current and major overhaul of the housing. It ordered the MUP to comply with the terms of the social tenancy agreement. The judgment did not contain further clarifications. The judgment entered into force ten days later.

  9. On 17 September 2001 the bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, on several...

To continue reading