CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mars 2019

.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 } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 33374/11 Zelimkhan Ziyaudinovich ESKIYEV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   March 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009), 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 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 at the European Court of Human Rights and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants submitted the copies of the judgments, by which the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny (“the District Court”) had recovered from the regional department of the Ministry of the Interior their allowance for direct participation in the counter-terrorist operations in the North Caucasus (see the details in the Appendix). On an unspecified date the investigator of the Department of Interior for the Zavodskoy District of Grozny opened a criminal case no.   11010 on account of forgery of documents produced by the District Court. According to the information submitted by the Government, the investigation established that in 2005 and 2006 a clerk of the District Court had manufactured court judgments and writs of execution in favour of several servicemen of the regional Department of the Interior, including the applicants, concerning recovery of allowance for direct participation in the counter-terrorist operations. On 17 January 2007 the President of the District Court informed the Deputy Minister of Interior of Chechen Republic that the District Court’s archives did not contain a case file in the applicants’ name, nor did the records of incoming correspondence and inventory of civil cases contain any indication that the applicants had lodged a claim to that court. On 11 August 2008 the President of the District Court forwarded forged writs of execution, issued in the name of the District Court, to the head of the investigatory department of the Ministry of Interior. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the authorities had failed to enforce the judgments in their favour. THE LAW A.     Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour allegedly delivered by the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. These provisions read in the relevant part as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... 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 preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” The Government argued that the applicants’ complaints were inadmissible as they never had a right to enforcement of a forged court judgment. The applicants insisted that they had acted in good faith and were still entitled to receive the money. The Court observes that the information submitted by the Government serves as clear evidence that the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny did not deliver the judgments in the applicants’ favour. Even assuming that the applicants were indeed unaware of the falsified nature of the impugned court judgments and acted in good faith while lodging their complaints to the Court, it cannot be denied that they never acquired a genuine right to receive a monetary award or to enforcement of a court judgments and thus do not have an arguable claim under the Convention (see Isayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 59026/08, 12 June 2012). In these circumstances the Court regards these complaints as manifestly ill-founded and rejects them in accordance with Article   35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. B.     Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention Lastly, all applicants in addition complained under Article 13 of the Convention about lack of an effective domestic remedy against non ‑ enforcement. In the light of above findings, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court 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 they are manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 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 28 March 2019.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality   Represented by Alleged judgment in favour of the applicants Award 1. 33374/11 23/04/2011 Zelimkhan Ziyaudinovich ESKIYEV 15/05/1973 Grush-Kort Russian   Ilyas Yakubovich TIMISHEV Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny 14/04/2006 RUB 636,774.16 2. 67592/13 05/10/2013 Magomed Salekh Akhmedovich MALSAGOV 16/04/1972 Groznyy Russian   Ilyas Yakubovich TIMISHEV Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny 11/04/2006   RUB 1,186,468.50 3. 77578/14 25/11/2014 Khamzat Barkhanovich ISAYEV 11/02/1982 Argun Russian   Ilyas Yakubovich TIMISHEV Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny 22/05/2006 RUB 520,000