CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s94AD5A1 { width:202.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s85E2A1C4 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom: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 } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560FF069 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE6E2B3B2 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s6513089D { height:88.2pt } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 2664/04 Lyudmila Konstantinovna MOSKALEVA and others against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   April 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, 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: THE FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals, except for the applicant in application no. 43291/05, who is a Ukrainian national. The application numbers, dates, the applicants’ names and their personal details are set out in the annexed table. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On various dates the applicants brought civil proceedings against private parties. The national courts held for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments (the debtors) to perform certain acts and/or to pay various sums to the applicants. The judgments became final and enforceable. The Bailiffs’ Service initiated and pursued enforcement proceedings against the debtors with varying degrees of success. Discontented with the alleged lack of progress in the enforcement of the judgments, certain applicants initiated judicial proceedings. The relevant information is presented in the annexed table. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about failure of the State to provide them adequate and efficient legal assistance in the enforcement of judgments against private parties. The applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that failure of the State to assist them in enforcement of the judgments resulted in violation of their property rights. Some of the applicants also lodged accessory complaints under Articles   4, 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications listed in the appended table should be joined, given their common legal background. The respondent Government in their observations argued that the present applications did not comply with the admissibility criteria under Article 35 of the Convention and thus invited the Court to declare them inadmissible. Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific admissibility arguments. The Court has carefully examined the applications listed in the annexed table and concluded that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the applications listed in the annexed table are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 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 17 May 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. date of introduction Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Represented by Domestic judgment in applicant’s favour (court, date, award) Article 1069 proceedings (final decision – court, date, award/reason to refuse) Reason for inadmissibility     2664/04 10/11/2003 (a) Lyudmila Konstantinovna MOSKALEVA 22/02/1941 Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region     (b) Nadezhda Konstantinovna Kosherova 15/03/1953 Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region       (c) Vasiliy Vladimirovich Moskalev 11/12/1965 Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region     (d) Galina Nikolayevna Cherdakova 17/05/1959 Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region     (e) Tayana Vladimirovna Nemova 26/11/1970 Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region     (f) Yelena Borisovna Ponomaritsyna (Letyagina) 30/06/1974 Chelyabinsk   (a) Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region on - 15 March 2001 / RUB   54,101.57 Korkino Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region on - 7 February 2003 / RUB   67,221.21   (b) Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region on - 7 May 2001 / RUB   60,243.53 Korkino Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region on - 3 October 2001 / RUB 134,018.84 - 7 February 2003 / RUB 95,548.50   (c) Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region on - 26 November 2001 / RUB   18,841 Korkino Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region on - 7 February 2003 / RUB 9,363.50   (d) Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region on - 14 August 2001 / RUB   20,799.58 Korkino Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region on - 7 February 2003 / RUB 10,399.79   (e) Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region on - 28 May 2001 / RUB   6,672.56 - 22 June 2001 / RUB 11,186.86 Korkino Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region on - 7 February 2003 / RUB 22,240.38 (f) Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of Korkino, Chelyabinsk Region on - 25 October 2001 / RUB 14,438.05 - 14 March 2001 / RUB 19,056.75 Korkino Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region on - 7 February 2003 / RUB 41,868.50   Chelyabinsk Regional Court / 8   September 2003 / claimed the debts and their indexation / refused: - no direct causal link between bailiffs’ inaction and damage caused by delayed enforcement; - preserved possibility of enforcement (pending bankruptcy proceedings); - delay in enforcement caused by bailiffs does not lead to automatic change of the debtor’s liabilities and to creation of a new liability for the State.   Manifestly ill-founded     32989/04 13/08/2004 Vladimir Yevgenevich PISKUNOV 08/11/1957 Glazov, Udmurt Republic   Viktor Nikolayevich Gasnikov 19/04/1960 Glazov, Udmurt Republic   Glazov Town Court of the Udmurt Republic on - 25   December 2003 / RUB 9,736.60 (immediate enforcement, daily interest in case of delay) and RUB   600   Justice of the Peace of the First Court Circuit of Glazov, Udmurt Republic on: - 26 January 2004 / RUB 30,132 - 26 January 2004 / RUB 12,744 Glazov Town Court of the Udmurt Republic / 9   March 2005 / lawsuit against an individual, a senior bailiff, for compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage plus interest / refused: - improper defendant (although the national courts clearly pointed out that the defendant was improper, the applicants did not claim its substitution for a proper one such as, for instance, the Bailiffs’ Service); - enforcement impossible due to the debtor’s bankruptcy.   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies     12177/05 14/03/2005 Lidiya Leonidovna AKULINA 24/11/1942 Blagoveshchensk     Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of Blagoveshchensk, Amur Region on - 2 April 2003 / RUB   10,410   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies     43291/05 06/10/2005 Feofan Antonovich NAZAREVICH 27/04/1939 Lutsk, Ukraine   Pechora Federal Town Court of Komi Republic on: - 27 October 2000 / RUB 93,358.86 - 6 November 2001 / RUB 24,926.62 Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic / 25 March 2005 / v. local bailiffs’ service for penalty and non-pecuniary damage / dismissed in the first instance: - bailiffs not responsible for the non ‑ enforcement; - no violation of the applicant’s rights and, accordingly, no compensation due; No appeal lodged. Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies     13684/06 13/03/2006 Aleksey Vladimirovich BABURIN 24/12/1968 Sankt-Petersburg   Vladislav Vadimovich LAPINSKIY Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Saint Petersburg on - 27   May 2005 / USD 30,380 Saint Petersburg City Court / 7   November 2007 / awarded the debt in RUB equivalent (RUB   777,412.04). Manifestly ill-founded     41375/07 01/09/2007 Aleksandr Nikolayevich SAPRYKIN 20/06/1975     Khlebodarnoye, Rostov Region Ivan Ivanovich VELICHKO Tselinskiy District Court of the Rostov Region on: - 20 December 2004 / RUB 139,161.65 - 31 January 2006 / RUB 15,082.50   Justice of the Peace of the 1st Court Circuit of Tselina District on - 24 March 2005 / RUB 29,145.46 Rostov Regional Court / 14 March 2008 / claimed indexed debt and proportional compensation ( rus . соразмерную компенсацию") / refused: - although certain irregularities were judicially acknowledged, it had not been proven that they caused loss or damage to the applicant (no decrease of the debt amount, preserved possibility of recovery); - no direct causal link between bailiffs’ inaction and the damage caused by delayed enforcement; - lack of the debtor’s funds cannot serve as a ground for recovery of the debt from the bailiffs/State Treasury; - "proportional compensation" claims have no basis in domestic law.   Manifestly ill-founded     58425/08 28/10/2008 Aleksey Leonovich KHODONOVICH 14/10/1936 Moscow Fedor Aleksandrovich ABRAMENKO Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 62 of the Istra Judicial District, Moscow Region on - 23 September 2005 / RUB 46,804.50 and non-payable major repair of vehicle engine     Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies