CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 44844/07 Kamil Zinnyatovich NASYROV against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21   September 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applications are inadmissible in view of the applicants’ failure to comply with the six-month requirement. In particular, the Court reiterates that non-enforcement of a judgment is a continuing situation (see, among many others, Trunov v. Russia , no.   9769/04, § 15, 6 March 2008). However, in a number of cases the Court has rejected non-enforcement complaints in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention if they were introduced more than six months after the date when the judgment was enforced or ceased to be binding and enforceable (see, in the context of the quashing of a judgment by way of supervisory-review proceedings, Kravchenko v. Russia , no. 34615/02, § 34, 2 April 2009, and Nikolay Zaytsev v. Russia , no. 3447/06, § 26, 18 February 2010) or when an applicant knew, or ought to have known, that the enforcement of the judgments in her favour was no longer possible (see, for instance, Babich and Azhogin v. Russia (dec.), nos. 9457/09 and 9531/09, §§   47 ‑ 54 and 57 ‑ 58, 15   October 2013; or Bichenok v. Russia (dec.), no.   13731/08, 31   March 2015, when the applicant learned of the liquidation of the company and absence of any legal venues to seek further enforcement more than six months before her application to the Court). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of these applications. The applicants did not argue that they had any available legal avenue at their disposal which could have brought them closer to their goal, that is, either the enforcement of the judgments in their favour, or, alternatively, engaging the authorities’ responsibility for the failure to properly assist them in the enforcement of the judicial awards in their favour. In these circumstances, the calculation of the six-month period runs from the date of the enforcement of the judgment or the date when the applicants learned, or ought to have learned, that the judgments could no longer be enforced (see Bichenok, cited above, § 25; and, mutatis mutandis , Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, § 20, 5   February 2013). The Court notes that as follows from the parties’ submissions the judgments in the applicants’ favour had been duly enforced or the applicants had become aware that there had been no realistic hope of a favourable outcome or progress for the enforcement proceedings at the domestic level more than six month before they lodged their application with the Court (for details see the appended table below). In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications were submitted too late and that they therefore must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12   October 2017.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Domestic order     44844/07 17/09/2007 Kamil Zinnyatovich Nasyrov 18/01/1957 Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok, 14/07/1997   24/07/1997   12/05/2006 (when the writ of execution was returned to the applicant) More than 8 years and 9 months to free from arrest frozen fish in the amount of 160 tons     52705/08 26/09/2008 Zhorzh Vladimirovich Kuntsevich 21/01/1938 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, 17/05/2007   27/05/2007   05/06/2007 10 day(s)   the Military Commissariat ... to index-link the sum of [the applicant’s] monetary compensation     71485/11 08/11/2011 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Shepelev 25/06/1961 Nizhnevartovskiy District Court of Khanty-Mansiysk Region, 20/12/2006   15/02/2007   30/08/2007 6 month(s) and 16 day(s)   "... return the excavator “KATO” [to the applicant] ..."     39983/13 20/05/2013 Vladimir Viktorovich Kravtsov 17/02/1964 Moscow Garrison Military Court, 18/11/2009   08/12/2009   21/08/2012 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 14 day(s) "... The Ministry of Urgent Situations to provide the applicant with housing according to the standards established by law in Moscow in priority order and then dismiss from service..."     39987/13 16/05/2013 Petr Georgiyevich Mikhalitsyn 15/02/1977 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow, 26/12/2011   09/01/2012   12/04/2012 3 month(s) and 4 day(s)   "... the State Pension Fund to cancel amendments in the register of the insured persons concerning the applicant, to restore previous information about the applicant, to cancel information on personal account about the transfer of money to private pension fund, to transfer to the managing company applicant’s pension money, to recalculate and to inform the applicant about the amount of money transferred ..."     37940/14 24/11/2011 (3 applicants) Svetlana Vasilyevna Khomyakova 05/03/1953 Oksana Guennadyevna Khomyakova 03/01/1975 Daniil Guennadyevich Khomyakov 31/10/1984 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 19/12/2003   26/01/2004   01/10/2010 6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s)   the Administration of Kazan to provide the applicants with housing