4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Pervomayskiy, the Krasnodar Region.
5.  In 1967-95 the applicant worked in the Far North of Russia. His family was entitled to assistance in resettlement from the Kamchatka Region pursuant to the Federal Target Program “Construction of housing for persons moving from the Far North Areas”.
6.  The program was adopted on 10 July 1995 by the Government of Russia, in accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation no. 1122 of 23 September 1992. It provided, inter alia, for construction of housing for persons wishing to resettle from the Far North to various Russian regions. The program was financed by the federal and regional budgets. The client for the entire program was a state scientific and production company S.M.
7.  In 1994 S.M. and the State Unitary Enterprise “United Direction for Construction of the Kamchatka Region” (the GUP) concluded a co‑operation agreement. S.M. undertook to build an apartment block in Inzhavino of the Tambov Region, provide assistance with residence registration and compensate 30 per cent of the flats’ price in case they were occupied. The GUP undertook to pay for the housing.
8.  At a later stage in 1994 the applicant and the GUP concluded a shared-construction agreement in respect of a flat in the apartment block in Inzhavino. The GUP undertook to provide the applicant with the flat and to transfer it to the applicant’s ownership once it was accepted for exploitation, and the applicant was to pay the price of the flat. He paid the amount due.
9.  In 1995 S.M. built the flats and transferred them to the GUP, which was acting for the administration of the Kamchatka Region, to be registered as the administration’s property. The GUP then transferred the flat to the applicant, whose title to the flat was registered. However, expert examinations in respect of the adjacent flats in the same apartment block revealed a number of serious breaches of the sanitary and construction which made the apartment block unsuitable for living.
10.  On 2 February 2001 the applicant brought a court action against the GUP for non-compliance with contractual obligations and provision of appropriate housing in accordance with the contract, instead of the flat initially provided to him.
11.  On 21 June 2001 he modified the claims asking to dissolve the shared-construction agreement, declare the apartment block to be not in compliance with the construction norms, and pay him damages. On 22 June 2001 the expert examination was ordered by the court, and in December 2001 the expert report was submitted to the court. In the meantime, the case was joined with a number of similar cases against the same defendant.
12.  On 13 February 2002 the Inzhavinskiy District Court of the Tambov Region (“the District Court”) rejected the claim. On 25 March 2002, acting on the applicant’s appeal, the Tambov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case for a new examination, for the court’s failure to establish substantial facts of the case and to examine some items of evidence referred to in the judgment.
13.  On 15 July 2002 the District Court again rejected the claim. On 21 August 2002 the Regional Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and found that the lower court had incorrectly applied the domestic law provisions on statutory limitations. It quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for a new examination.
14.  On 11 September 2002 the District Court allowed the claim in part and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant an amount of money. On 23 October 2002 the Regional Court granted the applicant’s appeal and found that the lower court had raised and examined issues falling outside the scope of the applicant’s claims. It annulled the first-instance judgment and sent the case for a fresh consideration by the first-instance court.
15.  On 28 January 2003 the District Court allowed the claim in part and awarded the applicant a sum of money which was larger than that pursuant to the judgment of 11 September 2002. On 26 March 2003, on the appeal of the applicant’s counsel, the Regional Court quashed the judgment, in particular, for a failure to address the important circumstances of the case, and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
16.  On 20 June 2003 the District Court allowed the claim in part and declared the contract at issue null and void. On 22 July 2003 the District Court supplemented its judgment of 20 June 2003. Both parties appealed. On 20 August 2003 the Regional Court annulled the judgments, having found that the lower court had incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, and ordered a new examination of the case by the first-instance court.
17.  On 1 December 2003 the District Court allowed the claim in full. On 10 March 2004, on the appeal of the defendant, the Regional Court set aside the judgment as it contained an incorrect interpretation of the substantive law, and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
18.  The applicant modified his claim, requesting replacement of the flat by a new one of appropriate quality, in line with the consumer protection law.
19.  On 5 May 2005 the District Court rejected the claim. The applicant appealed. On 27 July 2005 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. The applicant applied for supervisory review proceedings.
20.  On 20 April 2006 the Presidium of the Regional Court granted his request, quashed the judgments of 5 May and 27 July 2005 as issued in breach of procedural and substantive law, and ordered that the case be re‑examined by the first-instance court.
21.  The applicant modified the scope of the claims. He claimed the dissolution of the shared-construction agreement, as well as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and court expenses.
22.  By a judgment of 17 July 2006 the District Court allowed the claim in part. It established that the flat built for the applicant by the company did not comply with the sanitary and technical requirements. The court ordered the dissolution of the shared-construction agreement between the applicant and the State Unitary Enterprise “United Direction for Construction of the Kamchatka Region” concerning the construction of housing. The court further obliged the respondent enterprise to pay the applicant 644,570 Russian roubles (RUB)[1] in damages, RUB 300,000[2] in penalty and RUB 12,277[3] in costs and expenses. The court further ordered that the flat be transferred in the local administration’s ownership. The applicant appealed. On 20 December 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 17 July 2006.
23.  On 31 January 2007 the writs of execution were sent by the district court to the applicant.
24.  According to the Government, on 2 November 2007 the applicant applied to the bailiffs’ service with a request to open the enforcement proceedings and enclosed a copy of the writ of execution. On the same date the enforcement proceedings were opened.
25.  Between 28 April and 25 September 2008, by several instalments, the debtor company transferred the amounts due under the writs to the applicant’s known banking account. However, the money returned to the company as the account had been closed in the meantime.
26.  On 19 September and 7 November 2008 the bailiffs requested that the applicant updates his banking account information. On 31 October 2008 the bailiffs’ service informed the applicant that the debtor had paid the amount due under the judgment, and re-invited him to submit his banking details.
27.  On 6 February 2009 the applicant provided the requested information. On the same date the amount awarded by the domestic court was paid to him in full.
28.  The State Unitary Enterprise “United Direction for Construction of the Kamchatka Region” (the GUP) was set up by a decision of the administration of the Kamchatka Region. The company, incorporated as a unitary enterprise at the material time, had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it by the administration in order to carry out its statutory activities. The founder was the owner of the assets.
29.  It appears that at the material time the GUP was involved in the construction of socially-important objects in the Kamchatka Region. It used to be a client for construction, major overhaul and reconstruction, represented the regional administration in the respective transactions and was in receipt of the relevant budgetary funds. In particular, in 2002-2005 the company on several occasions became a client and managed funds in respect of construction projects under various Federal Targeted Programs related to housing provision, including resettlement from the Far North, housing for orphans and veterans, and received funds from the regional budget for that purpose. Since August 2004 the company was “a regional State client” (областной государственный заказчик) in respect of the housing subsidies’ allocation for citizens leaving the Far North areas.