CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .sC9FF2A52 { width:145.85pt; 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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s3E39756B { height:58.15pt } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s24AC208E { 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 } .sF004B676 { 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 } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s181777A5 { width:22.45pt; display:inline-block } .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. 20851/05 Buranbay Abdullovich AYSULOV against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   October 2021 as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui, President,   Darian Pavli,   Frédéric Krenc, 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, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, then by his successor in that office, Mr   M.   Galperin, and lately by Mr   M.   Vinogradov, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 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. Some applicants 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 4 November 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Olga Chernishova   María Elósegui   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix (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   1.     20851/05 Buranbay Abdullovich AYSULOV   1951   Krasnodar   Russian   Self-representation   Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar   20/08/2002   RUB   251,900 Issued and sent to the bailiffs:   02/09/2002   Initiated:   10/10/2002 Unlawful omission recognized:   Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod   17/03/2005 (not sending copies of documents)   Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod   28/09/2007   22/11/2007   03/10/2008   Compensation proceeding:   Declined   Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod   19/04/2006   No causal link   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. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.     2.     8521/07 Valentina Mikhaylovna GANIMAN   1946   Troitsk, Chelyabinsk Region   Russian Troitsk Town Court   28/02/2000   RUB 33,215.50   Indexation of the award   Troitsk Town Court   22/09/2005   RUB 72,775.87   Troitsk Town Court   24/08/2007   RUB 83,189.97   Troitsk Town Court   20/04/2009   RUB 101,599.91     Initiated:   07/03/2000 Unlawful omission recognized:   Troitsk Town Court   05/12/2005   Compensation claim:   Dismissed   Chelyabinsk Regional Court   14/09/2006 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, 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.   3.     53213/08 Vladimir Fedorovich KUDRYAVTSEV   1950   Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan   Russian   Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV   Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa   15/12/1997   RUB 221,055   Initiated:   12/11/1998 Unlawful omission recognised and compensation proceedings:   Supreme Court of the   Republic of Bashkortostan   25/03/2008   RUB 50,000 of non-pecuniary damages   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, 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.   4.     40289/10 Aleksandr Vasilyevich YERMOLAYEV   1949   Rtischevo, Saratov Region   Russian   Self-Representation Commercial Court of the Saratov Region   01/12/1999   RUB   250,000   Initiated:   11/12/2000 Unlawful omission recognised:   Commercial Court of Saratov Region   12/10/2005   Commercial Court of Saratov Region   22/11/2006   Compensation proceedings:   Federal Commercial Court of the Volga Circuit   26/07/2010   Declined   The judgment is against a private party, and thus, falls out of scope of the Compensation Act 2010   Saratov Regional Court   04/05/2011   Declined   No causal link   Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his 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.   5.     20536/11 Marina Aleksandrovna MAKSIMOVA   14/04/1969   Volgograd   Russian   Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd   16/12/1999   Alimony equal to 25% of the income + additional maintenance equal to 25% of the income   Issued:   16/12/1999     Unlawful omission recognized and compensation proceeding:   Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd   20/07/2010   RUB 5,000 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.   6.     35043/11 Tatyana Yuryevna ANDREYEVA   1960   Irina Yuryevna ANDREYEVA   1992   Olga Yuryevna ANDREYEVA   1994   Nizhniy Novgorod   Russian   Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod   07/12/1995   Alimony equal to 1/3 of the income in respect of children + additional maintenance equal to RUR 60,500/month between 31/01/1995 and 21/02/1996 in respect of the first applicant Unknown, the case file was destroyed due to the expiry   of the statutory time-limit for its storage   Duplicates issued:   02/04/2002   Initiated:   07/07/2004 Unlawful omission recognised:   Priokskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod   06/07/2006   25/04/2008   03/11/2010   Compensation proceedings:   Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod   30/09/2010   RUB 26,164.20   Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court   17/11/2011   Dismissed     Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, the latter was fully enforced. 7.     55474/12 Farida Radikovna BIKAYEVA   1963   Perm   Russian   Industrialniy District Court of Perm   30/03/2009   RUB 2,706,018   30/07/2010   RUB 1,283,120   05/08/2011   RUB 1,014,391.43 Interim measure   05/03/2009   Main enforcement proceedings   27/05/2009   22/11/2010   09/11/2011 Unlawful omission recognised:   Perm District Court of the Perm Region   03/02/2011   07/06/2011   17/10/2011   Compensation proceedings:   Industrialnyy District Court of Perm   11/04/2012   RUB 100,200   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.   Article 13 – no need to examine separately. 8.     59958/13   Maksim Grigoryevich GORLOV   1939   Moscow   Russian   Self-Representation   Basmannyy District Court of Moscow   22/03/2006   RUB 244,907 Initiated:   17/04/2006 Unlawful omission recognised:   Basmannyy District Court of Moscow   10/03/2009   20/04/2009   29/06/2009   Compensation proceedings:   Supreme Court   19/06/2013   RUB 5,000 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. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.   9.     18862/14 Ivan Iosifovich TYAGLO   1943   Yessentuki, Stavropol Region   Russian   Viktor Vladimirovich POLYAKOV   Yessentuki Town Court   23/10/2008   RUB 1,813,100   Indexation of the award:   Yessentuki Town Court   18/06/2009   RUB 136,060   Yessentuki Town Court   22/03/2010   RUB 135,419.76   Yessentuki Town Court   15/02/2011   RUB 132,766.74   Yessentuki Town Court   26/03/2012   RUB 159,075   Yessentuki Town Court   24/04/2013   RUB 156,897.22   Initiated   02/12/2008 Unlawful omission recognised:   Stavropol Regional Court   19/01/2010   Compensation proceedings:     Supreme Court   07/04/2014   Declined   No causal link Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.   10.     55310/14 Yuriy Iosifovich MIKHAYLOVSKIY   1974   Moscow   Russian   Self-Representation   Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow   05/11/2008   RUB 1,495,103.30   Indexation of the award:   Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow   09/06/2011   RUB 343,020.70 Initiated:   19/02/2009 Unlawful omission recognised:   Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow   24/12/2009   Moscow City Court   08/11/2009   Compensation proceedings:   Supreme Court   02/04/2014   RUB 3,000   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. 11.     18827/17 Elena Mikhaylovna KUZNETSOVA   1966   Tver   Russian   Artem Yuryevich BRANNTSKIY Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok   28/02/2007   RUB 749,408     Initiated:     01/06/2007     Unlawful omission recognised:   Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok   28/04/2012   Compensation proceedings:   Primorskiy Regional Court   08/02/2016   RUB 50,000 non-pecuniary damage   Leninskiy Distrivt Court of Vladivostok   RUB 107,167,88 legal costs   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.   Article 13 – no need to examine separately. 12.     26352/17 Valeriy Mikhaylovich TOKUNOV   1954   Anapa   Russian   Susanna Ilyinichna ARUTYUNYAN   Interim measure:   Anapa Town Court   14/01/2011   RUB 3,025,919   Main proceedings:   Krasnodar Regional Court   05/11/2013   RUB 2,413,012.40   Initiated:   07/03/2013 Compensation awarded:   Supreme Court   21/09/2016   RUB 1,300,000 of pecuniary damage and RUB 100,000 of 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, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them. 13.     42552/17 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BARSUKOV   06/06/1978   Kursk   Russian   Andrey Nikolayevich GOLOVACHEV   Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd   28/01/2003   RUB 169,530   Indexation of the award:   Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd   10/07/2008   RUB 80,018,18   Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd   11/02/2011   RUB 59,165,33   Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd   30/04/2014   RUB 26,288,12   Initiated:   03/04/2003 Supreme Court   15/02/2017   Declined   No direct causal link 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. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.   Article 13 – no need to examine separately. 14.     19709/18 Yelena Nikolayevna MUSKATINA   1978   Moscow   Russian   Self-Representation   Khoroshevskiy Intermunicipal People’s Court of the North-Western Administrative Circuit of Moscow   10/04/1996   Monthly alimony payments equal to 1/4 of the income in respect of a child (1995 y.o.b.)   Penalty for failure to pay alimony payments   Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow   22/04/2015   RUB 8,643,371   (substitution of the applicant in the domestic proceedings, the sum was awarded to the applicant’s son who by that time was an adult) Initiated:   27/08/2013 Unlawful omission recognised   Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow   18/08/2016   Compensation proceedings:   Supreme Court   09/02/2018   Declined   No causal link 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. 15.     29409/18 Sergey Petrovich FILIPPOV   1958   Mikhaylovka, Volgograd Region   Russian   Anton Valeryevich GAVRILOV   Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region   13/12/2010   RUB 1,230,957 Interim measure:   16/12/2010   Main proceedings:   07/04/2011 Unlawful omission recognised:   Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region   25/12/2015   Compensation proceedings:   Supreme Court   30/01/2018   Declined   No causal link 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. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.