CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 septembre 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8B7697D0 { width:20.77pt; display:inline-block } .sC41D79AC { width:143.75pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; 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 } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s67A3BD37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.7pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s95AD1C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sCDCA8134 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8BDAE0D { margin-left:12.51pt; padding-left:5.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s2037C04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:15.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s96922480 { height:100.2pt } .s1F1D88E { height:69.45pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCFA679C0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-1.65pt; font-size:9pt } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 42140/05 Vasiliy Markovich FOMENKO against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   September 2019 as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Alena Poláčková,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen Phillips, 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 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and most recently by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicants are former employees of ZAO NPK(O) Energiya (the closed joint-stock company Research-and-Production Concern (Union) “Energiya”, «ЗАО Научно-производственный концерн (объединение) «Энергия» – “the debtor company”) in Voronezh. 1.     Background information about the debtor company and its housing programme in the 1980s 5 .     The company was initially set up in the Soviet era as a State enterprise producing engines and turbogenerators for military purposes. It was one of the leading enterprises of the Soviet military industry and participated, notably, in the Buran Space Shuttle programme. For instance, it produced a turbogenerator power source for the space system Energiya ‑ Buran, as well as a power supply system for the functional cargo block of the international space station Alpha. The company owned various properties, including industrial and leisure premises (such as sports, cultural and health facilities) in Voronezh (including in the city centre) and the Voronezh Region. 6 .     In the 1980s the company and the State launched a housing programme, which consisted of co-financing the construction of housing for the company’s employees. As stipulated by the contracts concluded in the late 1980s between the company’s management, its professional committee and several employees (including the applicants), the employees were to participate in construction works, and the management was to provide them with flats compliant with health and safety standards within six months. 7 .     In 1989 the State stopped financing the programme (see paragraph   28 below). 2.     Judgments in the applicants’ favour against the company (a)     Initial judicial awards 8.     The applicants brought court actions against the company for its failure to provide them with housing in accordance with the contracts. 9 .     Between 1995 and 1998 (on the dates listed below) the Leninskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region ordered the defendant company to provide the applicants with flats. The judgments became final on the dates indicated in the Appendix. 10 .     It appears that some 100 similar judgments obliging the company to provide employees with flats were issued by the domestic courts between 1995 and 1998. (b)     Change of the manner of execution 11.     On various dates the applicants asked the court to change the manner of execution of the judgments. 12.     In particular, at some point Ms Vtorova and Mr Pipchenko applied to the District Court, seeking to change the manner of execution of the judgments. On 24 February 1999 the court allowed their application and ordered the defendant company to pay them the market value of the flats on the date of enforcement. As the changed operative part still remained imprecise, the applicants sought to further change the manner of execution of the judgments. 13 .     Between 2001 and 2002 (on the dates indicated in the Appendix) Ms   Vtorova and Mr Pipchenko, as well as the remaining three applicants in the present group of cases, obtained domestic decisions allowing their applications to change the manner of execution of the initial judgments. In all five cases the courts ruled that the debtor company was to pay the applicants monetary amounts (specified in the Appendix) instead of flats. 14.     Once the judgments were changed, writs of execution were issued by the bailiffs service and the enforcement proceedings were joined to “joint enforcement procedure no.   18” against the debtor company (see paragraph   44 below). (c)     Applications to increase the awards in line with inflation 15.     Between 2003 and 2004 the applicants applied to the domestic courts to have their awards increased in line with inflation. 16 .     On various dates in 2004 (listed in the Appendix) the domestic courts allowed the applications by Mr Fomenko, Mr Pipchenko and Mr   Vorobyev and ordered that the amounts to be recovered from the debtor company be increased in line with inflation, as specified in the Appendix. 17.     Shortly after the increase of the awards, updated writs of execution were issued by the bailiffs service and the enforcement proceedings were joined to “joint enforcement procedure no.   18” against the debtor company (see paragraph   44 below). 18 .     Ms Vtorova and Mr Romashov’s applications in this regard were unsuccessful. The latest first-instance court decisions in their cases were taken on 21   April 2005 and 6   September 2004 respectively. The applicants did not appeal. (d)     Enforcement of the judgments 19.     In 2005 the debtor company started paying the debts in several instalments. By April 2007 (on the dates specified in the Appendix) the judgments in the applicants’ favour were executed in full. 3.     Information on the debtor company since 1991 (a)     The company’s incorporation as a closed company and available information about the period 1991 to 2003 (i)     Events between 1991 and 1996 20 .     In 1991 the Ministry of the Electrotechnical Industry and Instrumentation of the USSR and representatives of the concern decided to convert the company into and incorporate it as a closed joint-stock company ( закрытое акционерное общество ), the scientific production concern Energiya. A closed joint-stock company was a legal entity whose shares were distributed among a limited number ‒ a maximum of fifty ‒ of shareholders. The parties did not provide information as to the initial owners of the company’s shares. Scarce bits of information submitted to the Court by the parties, including articles from local newspapers dated 2003 to 2004, suggest that the shares were initially owned by the company’s unspecified employees. 21 .     The parties referred in general terms to the constituting documents of the company but did not submit any copies. In particular, the applicants submitted, with reference to the company’s charter, that it was a successor of the State enterprise’s obligations. 22 .     In 1992 the Ministry of the Electrotechnical Industry and Instrumentation of the USSR ceased to exist. From then onwards the company was no longer in receipt of State funds. 23 .     In the early 1990s the company’s management launched a large ‑ scale conversion programme. The company partially turned to manufacturing various types of civilian electromechanical equipment and consumer goods such as washing machines, refrigerators and repair parts, as well as electric power steering systems for passenger cars. It appears that the proportion of defence-related programmes was gradually reduced but preserved to an unknown extent, and that several military industry programmes, including the space shuttle programme, were de facto discontinued. 24 .     It appears that in the meantime various assets, including property and plots of land, were transferred by the State to the debtor company, on conditions not specified by the parties. In particular, in 1992 the company received a right of perpetual use of land situated at 1a Voroshilova Street in Voronezh for the construction of a sports facility, and in 1995 entered into a twenty-year lease for an additional plot of land for the construction of a second building for the facility. 25 .     According to a certificate issued by the Voronezh Town Committee of Housing Fund Management on 23   October 2006, at some point the debtor company, alone or together with private companies, commissioned the construction of five residential buildings, apparently apartment blocks, which were subsequently put into service between 1993 and January 1998. In 2000 a residential building at 4a Pobedy Avenue in Voronezh co ‑ commissioned by the debtor company and a private company, was put into service. No further details were provided. (ii)     Status as a “federal scientific production centre” 26 .     On 3   August 1996 by Decree no.   917 the Russian Government granted the company status as a “federal scientific production centre” (see paragraphs   146 to 151 below). Energiya was the first company in Russia to obtain that status. In 2000 the status was “confirmed” (extended) by the Government (see paragraph   151 below). (iii)     The applicants’ submissions on tax preferences 27 .     It appears that by a decision of 13   July 1998 the Voronezh Regional Duma (the regional parliament) included the company in the list of legal entities whose debts in respect of penalties and fines were to be written off, as the federal budget owed those companies for the defence order. According to the applicants, in November 1998 the Voronezh Municipal Council gave unspecified preferential advantages to enterprises providing public services in Voronezh, including the company. No details or documents were submitted. (iv)     The company’s petition of 22 January 2002 28 .     In a petition (no.   311) dated 22   January 2002 to the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology the company’s management asked for State support in discharging its obligations towards the people involved in the construction programme, including the applicants. The company reiterated that it had been a leading enterprise in various areas crucial for the State military and space industry. However, as a result of a large-scale ( лавинообразная ) conversion of the defence industry, the company had suffered enormous losses exceeding 1   billion roubles (RUB) owing to the lack of regular defence orders, but also a growth in expenses related to putting into place civilian production and staff training combined with the need to maintain its industrial capacity for defence production. The company reiterated that the housing programme had been put in place when the company had been State-owned. As a State enterprise, the debtor company and the State had co-financed the housing construction for its employees. The State had stopped financing the housing construction in 1989. In 1995 the company had discontinued any construction works owing to financial difficulties. The courts had issued judgments in favour of the employees concerned, obliging the company to provide funds for the purchase of some 150 flats. However, the debt had been so significant that it could have only been repaid if the entirety of the company’s assets, including all production facilities, had been sold. The company’s assets had been regularly seized. That had created an “unfavourable climate” in the company and had put at risk the performance of its contractual obligations, including those that were defence-related. The company accordingly asked the Ministry (i)   to apply to the Supreme Court to annul the judgment obliging the company to provide funds for housing [1] , as the company was unable to perform its contractual obligations, under Article   451 of the Civil Code (material change of circumstances, see paragraph   155 below) and (ii)   to ask the Government to allocate State funds for the purchase of 150   flats, on the proviso that the debt would be reimbursed within the next twenty ‑ five years. 29 .     The parties did not provide any reply received by the company. The request was not granted by the Government. (v)     Attempts to set in motion a supervision procedure 30 .     On 5   March 2002 several creditors of the company (all private individuals) requested the Commercial Court of the Voronezh Region to set in motion a “supervision” procedure ( процедура наблюдения ) in respect of the company. On 19   April 2002 the Commercial Court refused to set the supervision procedure in motion. 31 .     At some point before 23   October 2002 creditors of the company (a private individual, a municipal unitary enterprise and a private company) again requested the Commercial Court to set in motion a “supervision” procedure, seemingly in an unrelated set of proceedings (no relevant copies submitted). On 7   February 2003 the Commercial Court rejected the request. The refusal was subsequently upheld on appeal by a higher court. (vi)     The company’s debts in 2001 to 2002 and the 2003 interview of the Head of the Bailiffs Service 32 .     By August 2002 the debt of Energiya amounted to RUB   140,000,000 towards the budgets of different levels and RUB   115,000,000 towards extrabudgetary funds. 33 .     On 7   March 2003 the Head of the Bailiffs Service of Voronezh, in an interview with the Novaya Gazeta-Voronezh newspaper (submitted by the applicants), stated that at some point the company had had about 200   subsidiary companies, with some of them actively involved in the alienation and sale of the company’s unspecified assets. Most of the subsidiaries had in the meantime been declared insolvent. This situation, coupled with the lack of transparency and significant debt to private creditors and budgets of various levels, had given rise to serious concern for the local authorities, who had considered putting in place insolvency proceedings in respect of Energiya. In 2002 the company’s employees had requested that insolvency proceedings be set in motion, but the Commercial Court of the Voronezh Region had rejected that request. The bailiff further assessed the company’s debts as “unrecoverable”. He stated that the company had consistently referred to a lack of funds but that, on the other hand, in 2001 its director had sold several properties at a significant undervalue to OOO I. (a joint-stock company), which he had co-founded and which had been owned at the material time by private individuals. 34 .     The case files contain no documents, court decisions or further details shedding light on the above-mentioned transactions, the initial and subsequent owners of the properties or any other information on the matter. (b)     The 2003 sale of the company’s shares and events of 2003 to 2007 (i)     The company’s debts in 2003 and the State committee 35 .     As the company continued to accumulate a considerable debt in respect of salaries and mandatory payments, in June 2003 a State committee consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Industry and Science, Ministry of Property, Ministry of Defence, the Rosaviakosmos (Russian Aviation and Space) agency and the Voronezh parliament and administration examined the company’s situation. According to a local newspaper article [2] referred to by the applicants, the committee concluded that there were no signs of insolvency, observed that the company had kept its industrial and technical potential and “gave recommendations as to the choice of investor”. The article continues by stating briefly that the recommendations were not taken into account by the management of the company. (ii)     Sale of the company’s shares in summer 2003 and shares and assets in 2003 to 2005 36 .     By the end of summer 2003 the private closed company ZAO Mezhbankovskaya Investitsionnaya Gruppa (the closed joint-stock company Inter-banks Investment Group  “the MIG group”) had purchased 51% of the company’s shares, while 28% of the shares had been purchased by the private company Evraziiskiye Investitsii (“the EI”), a subsidiary of a private bank. The applicants submitted, with reference to the local press articles and without providing further details, that immediately after the purchase “the bailiffs seized the entirety of the concern’s assets” for “all debts” in the amount of “approximately RUB   80 million”. It is unclear whether the seizure took place within the enforcement proceedings concerning the applicants’ cases. 37 .     It appears that the company’s numerous assets were subsequently sold to different private purchasers and further resold on several occasions. In particular, it appears that the MIG group and the EI did not manage to find a consolidated approach to managing the company. They were subsequently involved in a series of sets of domestic proceedings challenging the validity of the minutes of meetings of the board of directors and various transactions concerning properties between private companies and, in particular, the debtor company’s title to various properties. In 2005 the EI sold its shares to the MIG group. 38 .     The applicants submitted, with reference to an article in the local newspaper Kommersant-Chernozemye of 23   September 2005, that the MIG group, the key owner of the company’s assets at the material time, had withdrawn more than RUB 460 million from the debtor company. In 2004 “when the bailiffs seized the company’s shares” “pursuant to a request of a private company I.” the debtor company “had to transfer” a building on Krasnoarmeyskaya Street in Voronezh to I., as payment of its debts to the latter. It is unclear whether those actions were related to the joint enforcement procedure (see below). (iii)     New attempt to set in motion a supervision procedure 39 .     At some point between December 2004 and February 2005 the local tax authority asked the Commercial Court of the Voronezh Region to set in motion insolvency proceedings in respect of the company, for its failure to comply with its obligation to pay RUB   1.1 million in taxes and mandatory payments to budgets of different levels within three months. On 1   March 2005 an insolvency case was opened by the court (case no.   A14 ‑ 2158/2005/7/16б). A number of private creditors, including other employees of the company seeking enforcement of judgments similar to those of the applicants, expressed their wish to join the proceedings as co ‑ petitioners. On 27   July 2006 the Commercial Court rejected the tax authority’s request to set in motion a supervision procedure. 40 .     The applicants’ colleagues’ requests to put in place a supervision procedure were subsequently rejected by the domestic courts as incompatible ratione personae . On 8   November 2006 the 19 th Commercial Court of Appeal found that the contracts between the ex-employees and the debtor company and the obligation to provide flats derived from “employment relationships”, while only “insolvency creditors” within the meaning of the Insolvency Act – that is, creditors having an unenforced monetary claim against the debtor – could seek to have a supervision procedure put in place. Even though the judgments were subsequently amended (that is, the obligation to provide flats was replaced by an obligation to pay amounts of money), the change of the manner of execution did not alter the legal nature of the initial obligation and did not make the petitioners “insolvency creditors” within the meaning of the Insolvency Act. It appears that no cassation appeal was lodged against the refusal. 41.     Case no.   A14-2158/2005/7/16б was subsequently discontinued. 42 .     While in 2003 Energiya had some 5,000 employees, by 2007 only sixty-one people continued working for the company. (c)   Available information on the company’s current status 43.     It appears that the debtor company has not become insolvent. At some point its financial situation improved. Having been incorporated at a later stage as a public joint-stock company, it is still operating. 4.     Enforcement proceedings 44 .     Shortly after the initial judgments had become enforceable, the bailiffs of the Leninskiy District of Voronezh initiated enforcement proceedings. Since 20   January 1999 those proceedings were part of “joint enforcement procedure no.18” in respect of the company, comprising seventy-seven separate sets of enforcement proceedings and concerning the recovery of the company’s debts to State and regional budgets, private companies and individuals, including more than one hundred judgments similar to those in the applicants’ favour. 45 .     Except in the specific cases mentioned below, the parties did not submit copies of any decisions of the relevant domestic courts or bailiffs or complaints of the parties concerning specific measures taken within the enforcement proceedings, such as their suspension or, for instance, the seizure of assets. However, the applicants regularly complained to several authorities, including the bailiffs service, the Ministry of Justice, the prosecutor’s office and the President of the Russian Federation about the non-enforcement, and received replies. On the basis of several replies received from the bailiffs, court decisions in the 2005 proceedings against the bailiffs (see below) and the Government’s observations, the progress of the enforcement proceedings may be summarised as follows. (a)     Available information on the enforcement proceedings in respect of the initial obligation to provide housing (between 5 May 1998 and late 2001) (i)     Stays of the enforcement proceedings in 2000 to 2001 46 .     The parties submit that the enforcement proceedings were suspended on several occasions by the courts (in particular, between 26   December 2000 and August 2001 pending supervisory review proceedings brought by the debtor company; on 14   June and 21   August 2001 pending the examination of complaints by the debtor company about the bailiffs’ actions ‒ apparently a fine imposed on the managing director). Copies of the relevant decisions were not provided. (ii)     The bailiffs’ actions 47 .     The bailiffs identified the debtor company’s assets, made requests for information, attempted to seize its assets and warned and fined its higher management for failure to cooperate. In particular, in June 2000 the bailiffs seized ninety-four cars belonging to the debtor company. They could not be sold owing to multiple stays and adjournments of the enforcement proceedings (see above). 48 .     On 3   May 2001 a bailiff of the Leninskiy district advised Ms   Vtorova that the debtor company had on several occasions been fined for failure to comply with the judgment in her favour and 127 similar judgments. Otherwise, the bailiffs had frequently taken measures to identify the debtor company’s assets. They had established that the debtor company was building an apartment block at 4a   Pobedy Avenue in Voronezh. The debtor company had asked TOO Tsentr-Service, a private company, to comply with its obligations towards the developers. TOO had accordingly been asked to provide information on the distribution of flats in the apartment block. A seizure order had been issued in respect of the building. Seven flats had been distributed to the claimants. TOO Tsentr-Service had been liquidated in 1999. The debtor company had no other available housing. The bailiff advised the applicant of her right to seek to change the operative part of the judgment to have the housing award replaced by a monetary amount. On 23   March 2001 the bailiffs had fined the debtor company again. The latter had challenged the fine in court. 49 .     On 25   June 2001 the Voronezh Region deputy bailiff advised Ms   Vtorova that the bailiffs had on nine occasions fined the debtor company for failing to execute the judgments. Some developers in a similar situation had sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the managing director of the debtor company, but their complaint had been refused. The bailiffs were collecting evidence to request the prosecutor’s office to bring criminal proceedings against the debtor company’s higher management (see also paragraphs 137-138 below). (b)     Available information on the enforcement proceedings between 2002 and July 2003 50 .     On 9   January 2002 the bailiffs seized various office and design items of the company. On the same date the enforcement proceedings were suspended by the regional prosecutor’s office while enquiries were carried out. On 23   January 2002 the bailiffs fined the managing director of the company for failing to comply with the judgments, including those issued in favour of the applicants. 51 .     On 23 and 31   January 2002 the Leninskiy District Court further suspended the enforcement procedure in respect of the amended judicial decision (see paragraph   13 above), pending the examination of the merits of a request by the debtor company to extend the time-limit for the enforcement until 2003 and a complaint about the bailiffs’ actions. On 28   February 2002 the court rejected the request for an extension, and the adjournment was discontinued. 52.     In the meantime, on 17   February 2002 the Chief Bailiff of the Voronezh Region requested that the enforcement files in respect of the judgments in the applicants’ favour, along with several others, be transferred to the Voronezh Inter-District Department for Special Enforcement Proceedings. Once the manner of execution of the judgments was amended (see the appendix and paragraph   13 above), a new round of enforcement proceedings started, pursuant to a decision of the Inter-district bailiffs service within “joint enforcement procedure no.   18” (see paragraph   44 above). 53 .     On 5   March 2002 the Commercial Court of the Voronezh Region suspended the enforcement proceedings pending determination of the request to set in motion the “supervision” procedure in respect of the company (see paragraph   30 above).On 21   March 2002 the President of the Voronezh Regional Court ordered yet another suspension of the enforcement proceedings, pending the examination of an appeal by the debtor company against the bailiffs’ actions lodged in the meantime. It appears that on 25   June 2002 the President of the Voronezh Regional Court revoked the suspension. On 19   April 2002 the Commercial Court refused to set the supervision procedure in motion (see paragraph   53 above). It appears that the enforcement proceedings were resumed in October 2002. 54.     According to the Government, in September 2002 the Inter-District bailiffs service was restructured, and enforcement functions were assigned to the Levoberezhnyy and Sovetskiy district departments of the bailiffs service of Voronezh. The archives of the Inter-district department had been destroyed by the time the Government’s observations were submitted. On 15   October 2002 the joint enforcement procedure was assigned to the Sovetskiy district bailiffs service. 55 .     On 23   October 2002 the Kominternovskiy District Court granted yet another request by the debtor company for an adjournment and suspended all enforcement proceedings against it pending the examination by the Commercial Court of the Voronezh Region of a petition to set in motion the supervision procedure (see paragraph   31 above). As on 7   February 2003 the Commercial Court refused to start the supervision procedure in respect of the company (see paragraph   31 above), on 13   March 2003 a bailiff of the Sovetskiy district reminded the Kominternovskiy District Court of the refusal and asked for the suspension of the enforcement proceedings to be revoked. The parties did not provide a copy of the court’s reply. 56.     In the meantime, on 5   March 2003 the Leninskiy District Court granted a request by the debtor company to adjourn ( отсрочка исполнения ) execution of the judgments. The period of adjournment was not specified in the parties’ submissions. (c)     Information on the enforcement proceedings from July 2003 to 2007 (i)     Events of June to August 2003 57.     On 19   June 2003 the Chief Bailiff of the Voronezh Region ordered that “joint enforcement procedure no.   18” be assigned to the Levoberezhnyy district bailiffs service (as upheld on 4   July 2003 by the Levoberezhnyy District Court). 58 .     On 9   July 2003 the enforcement proceedings were resumed. 59.     At some point in 2003 the bailiffs ordered the seizure and withdrawal of monetary funds from the debtor company’s accounts opened at two private banks and subsequently issued warnings as one of the banks did not comply with the order. 60 .     In early July 2003 the bailiffs ordered the debtor company to provide a balance sheet and a list of its debtors and fixed assets. They further requested information on the debtor company’s end product and goods for resale, as well as its general ledger and securities’ ledger. Most of the requests were made repeatedly, as the company failed to cooperate, as confirmed by the relevant “acts” compiled by the bailiffs. The bailiffs also sent requests to the authorities aimed at identifying the company’s assets, and twice warned the managing director of the company about criminal liability for persistently failing to comply with judicial decisions. 61.     On 10   July 2003 the bailiffs issued seizure orders in respect of the debtor company’s funds in banks in the total amount of RUB   358,995. Some RUB   12,000 was transferred to the deposit account of the bailiffs service, pursuant to an attachment order. 62 .     On the same date the bailiffs issued a seizure order in respect of the debtor company’s cash ( находящиеся в кассе должника ). By November 2003 no money had been transferred to the deposit account of the bailiffs service. According to the Chief Bailiff of the Voronezh Region (see paragraph   45 above), it was impossible to control the execution of the seizure order, as the debtor company’s management was refusing to cooperate. In July 2003 bailiffs were refused access to the debtor company’s premises. The ZAO did not comply with the bailiffs’ orders in good time and challenged nearly every action taken by the bailiffs in court. 63 .     On 24   July 2003 the bailiffs seized a car belonging to the debtor company. As it did not let the relevant bailiff examine and seize it, the traffic police were asked to impound the car. In August 2003 ten more cars were seized. 64.     On 4   August 2003 the bailiffs issued a seizure order in respect of ten properties at 97 Moskovskiy Avenue, 9 Kirova Street, 3 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street and 1a Voroshilova Street (see further paragraphs   67-83 below). 65.     As the company had provided a list of debtors, in August 2003 the bailiffs obliged the company’s debtors to make payments in respect of their debts to the bailiffs service’s deposit account, and also ordered an assessment of the debts by an expert. 66.     On 25   August 2003 the expert concluded that the company lacked liquid assets ( дебиторская задолженность неликвидна ). (ii)     Proceedings concerning unfinished buildings in Voronezh between August 2003 and 2006 67 .     On 27   August 2003 the bailiffs decided to levy execution on various properties, including unfinished buildings at 1a Voroshilova Street in Voronezh (see paragraph   24 above) “registered [to] the company” ( зарегистрированные за должником ). On 3   September 2003 the bailiffs within joint enforcement procedure no.   18 complied “an inventory and seizure act” (а кт описи и ареста ) and seized the properties (the unfinished sports facility) at the above address for the total value of RUB   4,900,000. 68.     On 23   September 2003 an expert was appointed to carry out a valuation of the properties, and three days later he was replaced by an expert from a different company, apparently due to a conflict of interests. According to the expert report prepared in November 2003, the market value of those properties was RUB   1,804,334. 69 .     The debtor company challenged the validity of the expert report. Accordingly, the properties were not referred for compulsory sale. On 26   January 2004 the Commercial Court dismissed the action. 70.     In the meantime, on 5   December 2003 the Commercial Court issued an interim injunction in respect of the unfinished buildings, restricting their transfer for sale ( запрет на передачу на реализацию ). On 26   January 2004 the same court cancelled the injunction. 71 .     On 24   February 2004 the bailiff issued a seizure order in respect of the unfinished buildings, and on 26   March 2004 they were listed for sale. The debtor company challenged the bailiff’s actions in court. 72 .     On 18   March 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court issued yet another adjournment order in respect of the joint enforcement procedure, at the debtor’s request. On 30   March 2004 the bailiffs received the decision and suspended the joint enforcement procedure. Two days later the bailiff informed the trade company of the suspension of the sales. 73.     On 20   September 2004 the Commercial Court issued another interim injunction, restricting the debtor company as well as other persons from alienating ( запрет на отчуждение ) the property at 1a   Voroshilova Street. The debtor company challenged the restriction in court but its claim was refused at a later stage. 74.     On 8   October 2004 the bailiffs service ordered the seizure of a plot of land reserved for the construction of a sports facility and a separate unfinished building both situated at the above address, in order to preserve the debtor company’s assets. 75.     As more than six months had passed since the latest public offer in respect of the unfinished buildings (see paragraph   71 above), on 30   November 2004 the bailiffs ordered a new valuation, to be performed by another private property valuation company. 76 .     In reply to a non-enforcement complaint by Mr Pipchenko, on 23   December 2004 the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office advised him that the bailiffs were taking measures to enforce the judgments in his and his colleagues’ favour. However, their task had been complicated by the fact that the company was regularly challenging the bailiffs’ actions in court. The party’s right to appeal against a bailiff’s actions was set out in section   90 of the Enforcement Act, and the prosecutor’s office could not restrict the debtor company’s use of this right. 77 .     On 11   April 2005 the bailiffs asked the Commercial Court of Voronezh for a progress report in respect of the interim measure. The court advised that the measure remain in force. 78.     It appears from the Government’s submissions that in late July 2005 the Commercial Court held a hearing in case “no.   A-14-10899-2004/393-30 within which the alienation of the [properties] was suspended”. On 10   August 2005 the bailiff requested that the examination of the case be resumed. The reply is unknown. 79 .     It appears that in early October 2005 yet another valuation of the properties was carried out, as more than six months had passed since the latest assessment. 80 .     On 27   December 2005 the Commercial Court within unspecififed proceedings restricted the owner from alienating four properties at 1a Voroshilova Street. As the above-mentioned injunction appeared to only concern the assets’ owner, on 23   March 2006 the bailiff asked the Voronezh Regional Registration Authority whether it was possible to sell the four properties. The bailiff further asked the Commercial Court to clarify the decision of 27   December 2005 (see paragraph   80 above). On 10   April 2006 the court refused. 81 .     On 13   March 2006 the debtor company appealed against the bailiffs’ actions in so far as the assessment procedure was concerned. On 20   March 2006 the Leninskiy District Court informed the bailiffs that the enforcement actions in respect of the sale of the seized unfunished buildings at 1a Voroshilova Street were suspended. 82.     On 17   April 2006 the Voronezh Regional Registration Authority advised the bailiffs in reply to their query (see paragraph   81 above) that it was in charge of the legal expert examination of the documents submitted for State registration. However, no assessment was possible until the restrictions put in place by the Leninskiy District Court (ibid) were dropped. 83 .     On 7   April 2006 the bailiff again decided to request an updated valuation by a specialist of the property at 1a Voroshilova Street, as the previous assessment made more than six months before was no longer valid (see paragraph   79 above). 84.     The Government provided no information on the subsequent events concerning the above-mentioned assets. (iii)     Information on the attempts to seize an engineering building and on its sale 85 .     On 17   September 2003 the debtor company’s title to the non-residential premises (apparently an engineering building) at 90 20-letiye Oktyabrya Street in Voronezh was registered in the Consolidated State Register of Property Rights and Transactions ( Единый государственный реестр прав на недвижимое имущество и сделок с ним ). 86 .     According to the Government, on 1   October 2003 the Committee on Land Resources and Land Planning ( Комитет по земельным ресурсам и землеустройству ) of Voronezh informed the bailiffs in reply to a request for updated information about the company’s registered assets (see paragraph   88 below) that the premises were registered to the debtor. Two days later the bailiffs issued a seizure order in respect of the building. However, on 13   October 2003 the Committee on Land Resources informed the bailiffs service that “a transfer of title in respect of the [property] had taken place”. 87 .     According to an article in the local newspaper Kommuna of 28   July 2007 provided by the applicants, as well as a decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 12   February 2008 in a tax-related case not involving the applicants or the debtor company, on 23   September 2003 the debtor company sold the non-residential premises at 90 20-letiye Oktyabrya Street to a private company, A.-T., for RUB   29,024,830. The transaction was registered on 29   September 2003 in the State Register of Property Rights and Transactions. Two weeks later, on 10   October 2003, A.-T. sold the building to a different private company for RUB   145,725,507. (iv)     The bailiffs’ other activities from autumn 2003 to 2007 88 .     On 15   September 2003 the bailiffs requested a local registration authority to provide updated information on the company’s registered assets. 89.     On 30   September 2003 the bailiffs seized the debtor company’s property at 54 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street in Voronezh. 90.     On 23   October 2003 the bailiff ordered the managing director of the company to transfer RUB 25,549,993 to the bailiffs’ deposit account as of the date of receipt of the order. 91.     At some point two debtors of the company, a private open joint ‑ stock company OOO V. and a municipal hospital transferred RUB   61,744 and 23,218 respectively to the bailiffs’ deposit account. 92.     On 3   November 2003 the bailiffs ordered the seizure of the debtor company’s accounts at private bank B. The bank returned the relevant seizure order unenforced, as there were no funds in the accounts. 93.     According to a certificate of 3   November 2003 issued by the company for the Levoberezhnyy District Court, property worth an overall value of approximately RUB 276 million was on the company’s books at the material time. At the end of November 2003, the company’s debt to its creditors amounted to RUB   25,471,403. 94 .     On 8   December 2003 the Levoberezhnyy District Court suspended the enforcement proceedings on yet another occasion, pending the examination of a complaint by the debtor company about the bailiffs’ actions. It appears that on 23   November 2003 the Kominternovkiy District Court issued a similar decision in respect of the enforcement proceedings pending in the relevant district. No further details were provided. 95.     On the same date the Chief Bailiff of the Voronezh Region ordered that the joint enforcement procedure in respect of Energiya be transferred to the Sovetskiy district bailiffs service. On 5   February 2004 the proceedings were resumed. 96.     On 25   February 2004 the bailiff issued debt collection orders in respect of the debtor company’s bank accounts at three more banks. As it complained to the court, on 26   February 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court suspended the enforcement proceedings. They were resumed on 15   March 2004. 97 .     According to the Government, between 27   April and late August 2004 the enforcement proceedings were suspended pursuant to decisions of the Sovetskiy District Court. The parties did not submit further documents or details. 98 .     On 2   September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were resumed. The debtor company complained about the bailiffs’ actions to the prosecutor’s office. On 15   September 2004 the Levoberezhnyy district deputy prosecutor requested the enforcement file while enquiries were carried out. On 4   October 2004 the enforcement case was returned to the Levoberezhnyy district bailiffs service. 99.     From September to October 2004 the bailiffs reverified the company’s assets. On 14 and 18   October 2004 the bailiffs attempted to seize the company’s accounts in another private bank, G.K. The debt collection orders were returned to the bailiffs unexecuted on 29   November 2004 owing to a lack of funds, as the accounts had been closed. 100.     In October 2004 the bailiff sent a request to a local property registration authority about the debtor company’s registered title to any property. On 2   November 2004 the bailiff issued a seizure order in respect of the entirety of the debtor company’s property listed in the registering authority’s reply. 101.     From November 2004 to February 2005 the