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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s13887275 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3225EC85 { width:33.12pt; display:inline-block } .s56EAFD9F { width:153.43pt; 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 } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 30744/06 Andrey Valeryevich CHUKAVIN and Others against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   September 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 June 2006, 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 A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, 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 case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were employees of a municipal education institution. On 7 July 2005 the Kolomna Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) awarded the first three applicants (see the Appendix) certain amounts against their employer. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Regional Court on 28 September 2005. The judgment of 7 July 2005 remains partially enforced. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained, inter alia , that the judgment of 7   July 2005 had not been fully enforced. THE LAW The Court considers that the applicants’ non-enforcement complaint falls to be examined under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows: Article 6   §   1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The Government submitted that the complaints by Mr.   A.   V.   Chukavin, Mr.   P.   V.   Chukavin and Ms.   Ye.   K.   Gorchakova are substantially the same as their non-enforcement complaint in case Gorchakova and Others v.   Russia [Committee], no. 21772/06, 12 June 2018. In respect of Mr.   G.   D.   Popov and Ms.   Ye.   A.   Yudina, the Government submitted that they were not parties to the civil proceedings against their employer, and no awards were made in their favour by the judgment of 7   July 2005. The applicants argued in reply that the present application concerned matters other than the non-enforcement of the domestic decision, and reiterated their other complaints. The Court notes that in the case Gorchakova and Others (cited above) it has found, inter alia , a violation of Mr.   A.   V.   Chukavin’s, Mr.   P.   V.   Chukavin’s and Ms.   Ye.   K.   Gorchakova’s rights on account of non-enforcement of the judgment of the Town Court of 7   July 2005. Thus, the non-enforcement complaint in respect of these three applicants in the present application is substantially the same as the one already determined by the Court, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention. As to the second part of the Government objection, the Court notes that the domestic judgment at issue indeed did not concern Mr.   G.   D.   Popov and Ms.   Ye.   A.   Yudina. Therefore, these applicants cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violation. Their non-enforcement complaint must be rejected as incompatible ratione personae pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. The applicants also raised other complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention. In particular, they complained about unfairness of the domestic proceedings which ended on 3   March 2004. Having regard to all the material in its possession in so far as the complaints fall within the Court’s competence, it finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill ‑ founded, pursuant to Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Applicant Date of birth   Place of residence 1. Andrey Valeryevich CHUKAVIN 07/04/1963   Kolomna   2. Gennadiy Dmitriyevich POPOV 04/01/1941   Parfentyevo   3. Yelena Alekseyevna YUDINA 06/10/1951   Lesnoy   4. Yelena Konstantinovna GORCHAKOVA 09/07/1958   Kolomna   5. Pavel Valeryevich CHUKAVIN 07/04/1963   Kolomna