CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .s93654821 { width:16.99pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s8E77A18C { width:191.4pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s804A0C7F { height:149.35pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 3137/03 Klavdiya Vasilyevna KHODYKINA against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   October 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. Ms Khodykina also complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and lack of the respective effective remedy. Similarly, Mr Serov and Ms Serova, and Mr Popov complained about lack of an effective remedy with regard to their complaints communicated under Article 6 § 1 and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1. 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   3, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17 and 18 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 25 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     3137/03 02/01/2003 Klavdiya Vasilyevna KHODYKINA 13/06/1954 Izobilnyy, Stavropol Region self ‑ representation Izobilnenskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region on - 22 February 2001 / interim injunction and seizure of the debtor’s property - 31 January 2002 / RUB 33,131.24 and seizure of the debtor’s property - 3 October 2003 / RUB 16,247.27 in indexation - 9 April 2004 / RUB 4,667.51 in indexation - 7 June 2005 / RUB 10,881.20 in indexation - 11 August 2009 / RUB 50,268.19 in indexation Federal Commercial Court of the North Caucasian Region / 29 September 2009 / claimed the debt of RUB 64,927.22 plus indexation / awarded the debt of RUB   64,927.22 without indexation     Manifestly ill ‑ founded         30369/04 18/06/2004 Ravil Minigayazovich SABIROV 14/01/1959 Mendeleevsk, Republic of Tatarstan   Naberezhnochelninskiy Town Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on - 19 July 2001 / eviction of the applicant’s former mother-in-law Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic / 18 December 2003 / refused: - no inaction on the bailiffs’ part; - no evidence of non-pecuniary damage; - lengthy enforcement resulted from the procedure of actual enforcement of the court-ordered eviction       Manifestly ill ‑ founded         7537/05 08/01/2005 Eduard Nikolayevich GALUTSKIY 14/02/1970 Petropavlovka, Belgorod Region     Oktyabrskiy District (Town) Court of the Belgorod Region on - 18 November 1998 / RUB 35,000 - 18 February 2003 / RUB 5,976.32 in interest and RUB 57,470 in indexation   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies         16584/06 19/03/2006 Yevgeniy Georgiyevich SEROV 17/02/1964 Saratov   Tatyana Aleksandrovna SEROVA 14/04/1939 Saratov   Ms. Serova/NNEF private: Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov on - 17 July 2002 / in kind (development of project documentation, works) and RUB   10,875.25   Justice of the Peace of the 1st Court Circuit of the Oktyabrskiy District of Saratov on - 3 April 2006 / obligation to bring the project documentation in compliance with the requirements   Mr. Serov/NNEF v. State: Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov on - 31 March 2005 / in kind (production of a written statement) and RUB 1,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage - 8 April 2005 / RUB 100       Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies   Manifestly ill ‑ founded         17862/06 07/04/2006   Larisa Mikhaylovna TARAN 19/04/1940 Yelizovo, Kamchatka Region   (i) Elizovskiy District Court of the Kamchatka Region on - 13 March 2002 / in kind (demolition of an unauthorized construction) / as amended by the Presidium of the Kamchatka Regional Court on 30   December 2002   (ii) Elizovskiy Federal District Court of the Kamchatka Region on - 2 July 2001 / in kind (transfer of the structures from the land plot’s border to the land plot pursuant to SNiP 30-02-97) - 29 July 2002 / clarification of the judgment of 2   July 2001 (the poultry and livestock structures be moved for 4 m., the hay structures - for 1 m. pursuant to the SNiP)     Manifestly ill ‑ founded           36529/06 07/08/2006 Valentin Viktorovich POSPELOV 30/05/1941 St Petersburg   Magadan Town Court of the Magadan Region on - 30 September 2002 / RUB 107,487.81   Magadan Regional Court / 11 July 2006 / awarded RUB 15,000 in compensation of non-pecuniary damage: - no evidence that the applicant’s incapacity resulted from the non ‑ enforcement   Manifestly ill ‑ founded         39888/07 31/08/2007   Aleksandr Sergeyevich POPOV 21/05/1954 Arkhangelsk   Igor Yuryevich Telyatyev (i) Commission on Labour Disputes of Arkhangelsk / 12 May 2003 / RUB   14,683.72     (ii) Taganskiy District Court of Moscow / 14   June 2006 / RUB 5,000 in non ‑ pecuniary damage for non ‑ enforcement of the judgment of 12   May 2003, and RUB 100 in court fee / upheld on 7 September 2006 by the Moscow City Court   Manifestly ill ‑ founded   Unsubstantiated   No significant disadvantage       9020/09 18/12/2008 Vladimir Nikolayevich LOMAKIN 05/06/1951 Moscow   Chertanovo District Court of Moscow / 31   October 2006 / RUB 52,709.93 in wages for the period of forced absence, cancellation of the dismissal order, reinstatement at work as of 15   February   2006, issue of a duplicate employment record without the record of dismissal Moscow City Court / 24 July 2008 /acknowledged unlawfulness of the bailiff’s resolutions on discontinuation of the enforcement procedure, refused recovery of average wages for the period of forced absence and of non-pecuniary damage: - the State Treasury is not a proper defendant (the debtor is the one)   Manifestly ill ‑ founded       11589/09 26/01/2009 Anatoliy Fedorovich IGNATENKO 22/04/1952 Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk self ‑ representation Justice of the Peace of the 27th Court Circuit of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Region / 3   November 2004 / RUB   16,847.16 (RUB 12,310 in wages, RUB 3,537.16 in compensation for unused vacation and RUB 1,000 in non-pecuniary damage compensation) and the copies of the orders on the applicant’s employment and dismissal   Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court / 8   June   2007 / RUB 5,000 in non-pecuniary damage compensation (for non-provision of the copies of the employment and dismissal orders) Sakhalin Regional Court / 21   October   2008 / RUB 20,100 in non-pecuniary damage No significant disadvantage     18550/09 01/03/2009 Yuriy Pavlovich GULIDOV 03/02/1951 Omsk Andrey Yevgenyevich Tverskoy Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Omsk on: - 22 January 2004 / RUB 66.652,71 and the debtor was ordered to accept the applicant’s resignation and modify the employment records accordingly; - 22 July 2005 / RUB 4,835 and the debtor was ordered to transfer the data concerning the applicant’s insurance payments in 2001-2003 to the RF Pension Fund   Omsk Regional Court / 2 May 2007 and 3   September 2008 / claimed recovery of the debt, interest, penalty and court fees / refused: - no causal link between the bailiffs’ inaction and the debtor’s failure to perform; - non-recovery of the debt caused by the debtor’s lack of funds (bankruptcy) Manifestly ill ‑ founded