{"id":1394,"date":"2005-04-05T11:42:07","date_gmt":"2005-04-05T10:42:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rcstaging.co.uk\/ehrac\/?post_type=case-studies&p=1394"},"modified":"2023-10-31T20:27:48","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T20:27:48","slug":"volkova-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/en_gb\/key-ehrac-cases\/volkova-v-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Volkova v Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t
\n

Case No. 48758\/99<\/strong>
\nJudgment date: 5 April 2005<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts<\/h3>\n

In August 1995 the applicant and her family were evicted from their dormitory and transferred to temporary housing, because the building required urgent structural renovation. The renovations were not finished on time and on 22 June 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court ordered the district administration to provide the applicant with \u2018comfortable\u2019 housing. When the building was completed the applicant refused to accept the accommodation offered, as she believed that the housing in the new building did not correspond to the definition of \u2018comfortable\u2019. Despite a judgment of a local Court confirming the applicant\u2019s right to live in \u2018comfortable housing\u2019, a regional court quashed the judgment and the substantially inferior accommodation in the newly renovated building was ruled to be adequate.<\/p>\n

Judgment<\/h3>\n

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the quashing of a final and binding judgment issued in the applicant\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n

The applicant was awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Links<\/h3>\n