CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 juin 2021

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s403582AA { width:8.67pt; display:inline-block } .sA68FC927 { width:137.18pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s3BC6FE02 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s279C6D70 { height:42.85pt } .sE9DB0247 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5303B780 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s143C0E0F { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s16CBB0A7 { height:14.35pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1666B0A7 { height:13.55pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s49634500 { height:30.9pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 34749/09 Yuriy Nikolayevich ORLOV against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 June 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Olga Chernishova, 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 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G.   Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by their successor in that office, Mr A.   Fedorov. 3.     The applicants alleged that the national authorities had failed to provide them with the necessary assistance in enforcement of the final court decisions against private parties. The circumstances of the case 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.     The applicants had final decisions in their favour against private parties rendered by national courts, on various dates, to be enforced. They submitted the writs of execution for these decisions to the bailiffs’ service and enforcement proceedings were initiated, which brough no or insufficient results. The applicants lodged civil actions against the bailiffs’ service, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage by the lengthy non ‑ enforcement of the judgments. The particulars of the relevant domestic proceedings are presented in the appended table. Relevant domestic law 6.     The provisions of domestic law concerning execution of judgments were previously set out in the case Kunashko v. Russia (no. 36337/03, §§   27-30, 17 December 2009) and concerning compensation for damage caused by public authorities and their officials in the case Smagilov v.   Russia ((dec.), no. 24324/05, §§ 17-31, 13 November 2014). COMPLAINTS 7.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to assist them in the enforcement of the final judgments against private parties. The applicant in the case Orlov v. Russia , no. 34749/09 also alleged that the above failure to provide him requisite legal assistance resulted in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. THE LAW 8.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly. 9.     The applicants referring to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to assist them in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour. The Government contested that argument. 10.     The Court notes that the applicable general principles are well ‑ established in the case-law. Notably, when final judgments are issued against “private” defendants, the State’s positive obligation consists of providing a legal arsenal allowing individuals to obtain, from their evading debtors, payment of sums awarded by those judgments, however this positive obligation is not that of result, but one of means (see, among many other authorities, Dachar v. France   (dec.), no.   42338/98, 6 June 2000; Fuklev v.   Ukraine , no.   71186/01, § 84, 7 June 2005; and Kunashko v.   Russia ,   no.   36337/03, §§   38 ‑ 39, 17 December 2009). 11.     The Court, having carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table and having regard to its case-law, concludes that, in the light of aforementioned and the material in its possession, the State authorities have provided requisite assistance to the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour, and impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to them. In view of the above, the applications are manifestly ill-founded, and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible the applications. Done in English and notified in writing on 8 July 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Olga Chernishova   Georges Ravarani   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No. Application no. Applicant name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by Domestic judgment in applicant’s favour (court, date, award)   Article 1069 proceedings (final decision – court, date, award/reason to refuse) Reasons for inadmissibility   1 34749/09 Yuriy Nikolayevich ORLOV   1946   Krasnodar Region   Russian   Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA Anapa District Court of Krasnodar Region, 26/02/2008,   RUB 1,492,730.80 (EUR 16 187,52)   Anapa District Court of Krasnodar Region, 16/12/2010,   RUB 502,115.38 (EUR 5,445.06)   Anapa District Court of Krasnodar Region, 02/02/2011   RUB 68, 938 (EUR 747.58)     Krasnodar Regional Court, 13/11/13   dismissed Article 6 – manifestly ill-founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities 2 10999/13   Oleg Anatolyevich TURUTIN   1968   Lipetsk   Russian   Mikhail Timofeyevich Yekaterina KLYCHEV   Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk, 25/07/2011   RUB 850,000 (EUR 9,217.60)   Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk, 23/04/2012   RUB 33,941,87 (EUR 368.07)     Sovetskiy District Court of Moscow, 15/10/2012   Dismissed   No evidence of loss. The enforcement proceedings are not finished, therefore, an opportunity is not lost. Article 6 – manifestly ill-founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them   3 3192/14 Natalya Sergeyevna DANILOVA   1968   Kostroma   Russian Justice of the Peace of the 8th Court Circuit of Kostroma, 08/09/2008   RUB 248,202.09 (EUR 2,691.56)     Leninskiy District Court of Kostroma, 09/06/2012,   Dismissed   Opportunity of enforcement is not lost   Article 6 – manifestly ill-founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them   4 19191/15 Vladimir Yuryevich GRIDIN   1970   Primorsk Region   Russian   Oleg Olegovich ANISHCHIK   Khasanskiy District Court of Primorskiy Region, 20/04/2009   RUB 143,830 (EUR 1,559.73)     Khasanskiy District Court of Primorskiy Region, 11/11/2014,   RUB 5200 (EUR 56.39) non-pecuniary damage   Article 6 – manifestly ill-founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them   5 52432/15 Tatyana Vasilyevna SAMOVIK   1976   Krasnodar Region   Russian     Justice of the Peace of the 66 th Court Circuit of Kropotkin, 06/06/2001   Alimony payment of 25 per cent of the applicant’s former spouse’s income starting from 18/05/2001 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, 11/09/2014   Dismissed   While certain actions of the bailiffs were declared unlawful, there is no causal link between damage and actions (inactions) of bailiff.   Article 6 – manifestly ill-founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them   6 9604/17     Aleksandr Vladimirovich USHANOV   1956   Kaliningrad   Russian     Yegor Leonidovych BOYCHENKO   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 29/10/2008   RUB 593,003.42 (EUR 64,30.67)   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 22/01/2010   RUB 55,349.09 (EUR 600.22)   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 07/09/2010   RUB 18,962.08 (EUR 205.63)   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 07/09/2010   RUB 79,968.74 (EUR 867.20)   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 18/12/2012   RUB 11,336.32 (EUR 122.93)   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 18/12/2012   RUB 100,206.90 (EUR 1,086.67)   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 26/11/2013   RUB 192,819.91 (EUR 2,090.98)   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 02/09/2016   RUB 49,443.87 (EUR 536.18)   Kaliningrad Regional Court, 22/11/2016   RUB 246,235.28 (EUR 2,670.23)   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 13/12/2016   RUB 31,565.40 (EUR 342,30)   Central District Court of Kaliningrad, 16/02/2016   RUB 7,000 (EUR 75.91) non-pecuniary damage     Central District Court of Kaliningrad, 04/07/2016   RUB 1,000 (EUR 10.84) non-pecuniary damage   Central District Court of Kaliningrad, 08/08/2016   Dismissed   Central District Court of Kaliningrad, 07/04/2017   Dismissed   Central District Court of Kaliningrad, 23/06/2017   RUB 5,000 (EUR 54.22) non-pecuniary damage           Article 6 – manifestly ill-founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them   7 50773/17 Aleksandr Alekseyevich KHARLOV   1965   Barnaul   Russian   Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SHITOV   Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul, 20/06/2014   RUB 719,750 (EUR 7,805.14)       Tsentralnyy District Court of Barnaul, 03/02/2015   Dismissed   Despite the delayed measures, there is no causal link between the alleged damage and actions (inactions) of bailiff. The enforcement proceedings are not finished, therefore, an opportunity is not lost   Tsentralny District Court of Barnaul, 14/07/2016   RUB 2,000 (EUR 21,69) non-pecuniary damage   Article 6 – manifestly ill-founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them   8 76973/17 Oleg Sergeyevich DZHURKO   1937   Moscow Region   Russian   Yekaterina Borisovna BELOVA     Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow, 22/11/2013   RUB 1,474,356 (EUR 15,988.26)       Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, 07/07/2016   Dismissed   The enforcement proceedings are not finished; there is no causal link between damage and actions (inactions) of bailiff. Article 6 – manifestly ill-founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them