CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 septembre 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3225EC85 { width:33.12pt; display:inline-block } .s13C999E6 { width:151.43pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; 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 } .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 } .s70A7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sDCDDF9AD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.15pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s24B0F9AD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.15pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s1E6C756B { height:59.95pt } .s294D88E { height:62.05pt } .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 } .s2074421C { width:31.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 27862/06 Valentin Ivanovich MAVRUNICHEV and Yelena Ivanovna MAVRUNICHEVA against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   September 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. 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 further 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 lodged accessory complaints under Articles   6, 13, 14, 17 and 34 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 18 October 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     27862/06 18/05/2006 Valentin Ivanovich MAVRUNICHEV 09/04/1936 Moscow   (i) Savelovskiy Intermunicipal Court of Moscow on - 13 November 1998 / RUB 57,406.51   Tverskoy Intermuniciapl District Court of the Central Administrative District of Moscow on - 4 July 2001 / RUB 38,578.58 - 18 February 2002 / RUB 13,689.40   (ii) Savelovskiy Intermunicipal Court of Moscow on - 20 October 2003 / RUB 144,738.32   (iii) Taganskiy District Court of the Central Administrative District of Moscow on - 10 October 2000 / RUB   14,820.64 (RUB   4,906.88 in damage, RUB   4,906.88 in penalty, RUB   4,906.88 in interest for use of other persons’ monetary means, RUB   100 in non-pecuniary damage) - 20 September 2001 / RUB 3,530.53 in indexation (i) Moscow City Court on - 24 November 2005 / claimed pecuniary damage / refused: - no causal link between the bailiffs’ actions and the damage; - the bailiffs did not cause any damage, no evidence to the contrary; - non-enforcement entailed by liquidation of the bank holding the debtor’s account; no responsibility of the State for the liquidation;   (ii) Moscow City Court on - 25 October 2005 / awarded RUB 100 in non-pecuniary damage and RUB 100 in the state fee recovery;   - 21 November 2006 / claimed pecuniary damage / refused: the Ministry of Finance is an improper defendant, the proper one being the Bailiffs’ Service;   - 15 January 2008 / claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage / refused: - no causal link between the bailiffs’ actions and the non-enforcement; - the bailiffs’ resolutions on discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings were judicially quashed on formal grounds; - no contractual relations between the applicant and the Bailiffs’ Service and, accordingly, the bailiffs have no obligations before the applicant;   (iii) Moscow City Court on - 15 January 2008 / claimed the main debt plus indexation / refused: - no causal link between the bailiffs’ actions and the non-enforcement; - although the bailiff’s omission (lack of internal authorization for dealing with the transferred case, failure to undertake sufficient enforcement measures) were judicially acknowledged, the courts did not consider the enforcement measures undertaken by other bailiffs prior to the case transfer; - the applicant failed to re-submit the writ upon receipt of the bailiff’s resolution of 7   June 2006 on its return; - the debtor was excluded from the Unified State Register of legal entities on 27   April   2006, no evidence that the debtor had any property; - no contractual relations between the applicant and the Bailiffs’ Service and, accordingly, the bailiffs have no obligations before the applicant   Manifestly ill ‑ founded     31312/06 13/05/2006 Igor Genyevich ZADIRAKO 14/03/1959 Taganrog Ivan Nikolayevich Zaytsev Commercial Court of the Rostov Region on - 3 April 2004 / RUB 2,592,794 in debt and RUB   600 in compensation of the fee paid for an official certificate     Federal Commercial Court of the North Caucasian Region on - 9 January 2007 / claimed RUB 347,120 in compensation of pecuniary damage (RUB   294,703 of damage plus RUB   52,417 of interest) / awarded RUB   267,203; - 14 May 2008 / claimed RUB 1,988,423 in damage ( rus. убытки) and RUB   775,482 in interest / awarded RUB   1,988,423 Manifestly ill ‑ founded         19842/07 11/04/2007 Vladimir Mikhaylovich PARSHIN 02/09/1939 Pervouralsk, Sverdlovsk Region   Revdinskiy Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region on - 3 March 1995 / RUB 3,246,478   Pervouralskiy Town Court of the Sverdlov Region on - 24 March 1998 / RUB 6,000 in indexation   Sverdlovsk Regional Court / 14 December 2006 / refused: - no evidence that the bailiffs’ omission caused pecuniary damage; - the pecuniary damage was caused by the debtor; - no grounds for compensation of non ‑ pecuniary damage as there is no evidence that the applicant incurred personal non-pecuniary damage; - the national law does not provide for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by the authorities’ omission   Manifestly ill ‑ founded   Incompatible ratione temporis       26055/07 05/06/2007 Oleg Aleksandrovich BOGDANOV 27/07/1970 Saratov     Volzhskiy District Court of Saratov on - 4 July 2000 / in kind and penalty of 1/2 of the cost of the poor quality products for the whole period of delay from 12 December 1998 till actual enforcement Saratov Regional Court / 6 December 2006 / claimed pecuniary damage / refused: - the bailiff’s omission (transfer of the writ to the Bailiffs’ Service at the location of the debtor’s employer for enforcement) did not cause any damage as the possibility of enforcement preserved; - no evidence of actual damage inflicted by the bailiff’s omission Incompatible ratione personae   Unsubstantiated   Manifestly ill ‑ founded       31927/10 05/05/2010 Vasiliy Mikhaylovich KOCHUROV 25/02/1948 Perm   Private arbitration court of the Perm Region at the Non-commercial partnership “Perm Regional Bar Association” ( rus. Третейский суд Пермского края при Некоммер-ческом партнерстве "Пермская региональная юридическая коллегия") on - 7 February 2009 / RUB 1,071,242 / writ of execution issued by the Sverdlovsk District Court of Perm on 18 March 2009   Sverdlovsk District Court of Perm on - 18 December 2009 / RUB 174,748.41 in interest     Perm Regional Court / 20 June 2011 / claimed acknowledgement of the bailiffs’ inaction and recovery of the debt of RUB   1,398,465.60 / bailiffs’ inaction acknowledged, other claims refused: - the applicant failed to claim levy of execution upon the debtor’s land plots; - the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings are pending and the possibility of enforcement is preserved; - no evidence of a causal link between the bailiffs’ actions and/or omission and the damage incurred by the applicant; - submission of a writ of execution to the Bailiffs’ Service for enforcement does not entail substitution of persons in the obligation and thus does not create an obligation for the State to pay the debt instead of the private debtor Manifestly ill ‑ founded   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies     38697/10 15/06/2010 Sergey Georgiyevich TROFIMOV 06/07/1950 Zarinsk, Altay Region   Zarinskiy Town Court on - 10 November 2005 / arrest of the debtor’s funds   Altay Regional Court on - 23 August 2006 / RUB 5,816,000 Altay Regional Court / 16 December 2009 / claimed RUB 2,764,403.31 in pecuniary damage / refused: - the debtor’s assets were lawfully released from arrest subject to the judgment of 20   July 2007 on the debtor’s bankruptcy and initiation of the bankruptcy proceedings; - non-enforcement caused by (i) parallel enforcement of the claims of another creditor (OJSC Altayvagon, rus. ОАО   "Алтайвагон", the OJSC) which commenced prior to the enforcement of the applicant’s claims, and (ii) the debtor’s bankruptcy; - no causal link between the authorities’ activities and the non-enforcement; - the sum of RUB 2,764,403.31 that OJSC Altayvagon owned to the debtor (and that was arrested on the OJSC’s settlement account in favour of the applicant) ceased to be a debt as of 14 April 2006 due conclusion by OJSC and the debtor of an agreement on release from the obligation   Manifestly ill ‑ founded       10221/11 14/12/2010 Nadezhda Ivanovna VOTYAKOVA 18/06/1951   Leonid Aleksandrovich SANNIKOV 07/01/1984   Naberezhnye Chelny, Republic of Tatarstan     Tukayevskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic on - 24 October 2008 / RUB 168,614 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic / 1 November 2010 / claimed recovery of the debt / refused, but bailiffs’ inaction was acknowledged: - the writ of execution remains with the Bailiff’s’ Service and the right to its enforcement is not lost; - the applicant’s claim for imposition of the debt liability on the Bailiffs’ Service cannot be settled in these proceedings (in which actions/omission of bailiffs are challenged) Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies         33747/12 11/05/2012 Zoya Timofeyevna FILIPPOVA 08/06/1949 Khabarobsk   Krasnoflotskiy District Court of Khabarovsk on - 15 September 2010 / RUB 89,612.72 - 3 November 2010 / RUB 15,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court / 23   November 2011 / claimed recovery of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage / refused: - no causal link between the bailiffs’ omission and the incurred damage; - no evidence that the applicant incurred pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage; - the bailiffs took all possible measures; - the enforcement proceedings are pending and the possibility of enforcement is preserved; - the main judicial proceedings commenced in February 2009 (with the judgment delivered on 15 September 2010) and the applicant repeatedly changed her claims in their course; the applicant was aware of the debtor’s financial instability but failed to claim imposition of preventive measures; - the judgment of 15 September 2010 and the applicant’s submissions did not contain the debtor’s identification particulars (INN) or the name of its top-manager and the bailiff took reasonable steps to investigate the same and the debtor’s bank accounts, etc.   Manifestly ill ‑ founded         72777/12 11/10/2012 Sergey Vladimirovich PETROV 16/04/1971 Moscow     Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow on - 28 July 2009 / recovery of unpaid wages, compensation for unused vacation, RUB   41,501.46 in non-pecuniary damage, RUB   11.55 per day as of 23 January 2009 in compensation of unpaid wages and unused vacation     Manifestly ill ‑ founded       15359/13 01/02/2013 Yelena Anatolyevna ARSLANOVA 27/05/1962 Saratov   Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov on - 18 June 2002 / amicable settlement agreement with regard to the apartment   Manifestly ill ‑ founded       22457/13 14/03/2013   Mikhail Fedorovich DOROSHKOV 05/11/1948 Balashikha   Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region on - 7 September 2005 / RUB 345,713 / indexed on 17   November 2010 to RUB 530,687 Moscow Regional Court on (i) 22 October 2009 / bailiffs’ inaction acknowledged, enforcement ordered but refused the claimed recovery of RUB   315,000 in damages: - certain measures by the bailiffs; - the debt partially recovered; - the debtor is a private party evading the enforcement;   (ii) 27 December 2012 / bailiffs’ inaction acknowledged but refused recovery of the debt and non-pecuniary damage compensation: - the debtor is a private party evading the enforcement; - certain measures by the bailiffs; - the debt partially recovered; - no evidence that the applicant’s non ‑ pecuniary rights were violated by the bailiffs; - no evidence of damages caused by the bailiffs’ inaction   Manifestly ill ‑ founded