CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 septembre 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s3E39756B { height:58.15pt } .sE66EF192 { 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:#f3f3f3 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF57259D7 { 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:#f3f3f3 } .s5FD1AFBA { 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:#f3f3f3 } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s1666B0A7 { height:13.55pt } .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. 57876/13 Galina Fedorovna IGNATENKO against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   September 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. M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov. 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 brought 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. Certain applicants also alleged that the above failure to provide them requisite legal assistance resulted in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The first applicant also lodged an accessory complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. 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 , cited above, §§   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 the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 30 September 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Olga Chernishova   Georges Ravarani   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments against private parties)   Application no.   Applicant name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by Domestic judgment in applicant’s favour (court, date, award) Start date of enforcement/submission of the writ to bailiff Article 1069 proceedings (final decision – court, date, award/reason to refuse) Reasons for inadmissibility   57876/13 Galina Fedorovna IGNATENKO   1933   Khabarovsk   Russian   Yevgeniy Vladimirovich ZHIGALKIN   Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk   22/09/2010   RUB   305,046,54   Commercial Court of Khabarovsk Region   16/11/2010   RUB   282,633,82   First proceeding   Submitted and initiated: 22/11/2010   Second proceeding   Submitted: 26/01/2011   Initiated: 28/01/2011 Unlawful omission recognized:   Industrailniy District Court of Khabarovsk   26/05/2011 13/09/2011 10/05/2012 28/02/2013 13/03/2013 06/06/2013 04/08/2016   Compensation proceeding:   Declined   Supreme Court   21/05/2013   Khabarovsk Regional Court   21/06/2013   Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.   Article 13 – no need to examine separately. 65409/13 Natalya Igorevna KONOPLEVA   1963   Samara   Russian   Denis Yuryevich GUDKOV Samara Regional Court 18/05/2009 RUB   74,100   Sovetskiy District Court of Samara 30/07/2010 RUB 4,060,61   20/10/2011 RUB 5,873,11   19/12/2011 RUB   14,510,19   Initiated: 22/06/2009 18/08/2010 14/11/2011 24/01/2012 Unlawful omission recognized:   Sovetskiy District Court of Samara   06/02/2012   Compensation proceeding:   Satisfied in part RUB 3,000 awarded   Supreme Court 07/05/2013   Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.   2953/15 Yevgeniy Ivanovich OLEYNIKOV   1962   Elista, Republic of Kalmykia   Russian   Nikolay Viktorovich OREL   Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia 18/12/2008 RUB   1,324,400   Elista Town Court 15/03/2010 (default) 13/07/2010 RUB   822,857,09   Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia 09/11/2011 Amount of the pledged apartment     Submitted: 07/07/2009   Initiated: 08/07/2009   Second set initiated: 14/05/2012 Unlawful omission recognized:   Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia   15/08/2013   Compensation proceedings:   Supreme Court 29/09/2014 RUB   15,000     Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgments in his favour, one of them was enforced. The other one was not enforced due to the applicant’s actions.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, one of judgments was enforced, while two others were not enforced due to the applicant’s actions.   51093/15 Anna Viktorovna LYAPKO   1957   Kalinigrad/Minsk   Russian   Aleksandr Viktorovich KOSS Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad 29/10/2009 RUB   336,803,59     Sent by the national court: 19/02/2010 Unlawful omission recognized:   Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad   23/12/2013   Compensation proceedings:   Supreme Court 10/07/2015 RUB 30,000 Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her 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. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.