CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 juillet 2024

.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 } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF OOO SITI STROY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 78109/17 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of OOO Siti Stroy and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 AND   ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL N o .   1 7.     The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention and on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. 8.     The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article   6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.   Greece , no.   18357/91, §   40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II). 9.     In the leading case of Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos.   39483/05 and 40527/10, 9   October 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered a specific action to be taken, that is specific amounts to be paid to the applicants (see the appended table for details of court orders). The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. 11.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 12.     The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Voronkov v. Russia, no. 39678/03, §§ 68-69, 30   July 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table which have not been enforced. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the domestic decisions given against state and municipal unitary enterprises and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law; Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table which have not been enforced; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth/ Registration   Representative’s name and location Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Domestic order (in euros) Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     78109/17 31/10/2017   OOO SITI STROY 2005 Itslayev Dokka Saydaminovich Grozny Commercial Court of Moscow 22/06/2009   23/10/2009   pending More than 13   year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s)   813,831   Judgment debt: RUB 30,878,672 of unpaid contractual debt under a subcontract agreement for reconstruction and clean-up of debris in Grozny, RUB 4,639,797 of interest, to be paid by the State Unitary Enterprise “Spetsstroy of the Ministry of Construction of the Chechen Republic” (“GUP Spetsstroy”). In 2013 insolvency proceedings were put in place in respect of the GUP Spetsstroy, and the applicant company’s claims confirmed by the domestic judgment were included in the register of the GUP’s creditors. In response to its multiple complaints to authorities, the applicant company was on several occasions informed of the impossibility to recover the debt. On 22/11/2021 a first-instance court discontinued the insolvency proceedings (for details concerning the debtor company’s legal status and activities, the sub-contract agreements and the insolvency proceedings, see OOO Truzhenik-89 and OOO Firma Moaz v. Russia [Committee], nos. 34336/10 and 30108/13, §§1-17, 8 March 2022). 2,000     79711/17 07/11/2017   OOO FIRMA IMPULS-A 2002 Itslayev Dokka Saydaminovich Grozny Sixteenth Commercial Appellate Court 18/07/2013   18/07/2013   pending More than 10   year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s)   1,020,749   Judgment debt (arising out of a friendly settlement agreement approved by the domestic court in the final instance): RUB 43,500,000 of unpaid contractual debt under a sub-contract agreement, to be paid by the State Unitary Enterprise “Spetsstroy of the Ministry of Construction of the Chechen Republic” (“GUP Spetsstroy”). The applicant company’s claims were included in the register of the GUP’s creditors. Insolvency proceedings were discontinued on 22/11/2021 (for relevant details, see the above-cited OOO Truzhenik-89 and OOO Firma Moaz [Committee]). 2,000     3700/18 30/12/2017 Andrey Georgiyevich STRELTSOV 1971 Bogomolov Sergey Borisovich Chelyabinsk Commercial Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 25/02/2011   05/03/2011   pending More than 12 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 29 day(s)   52,900   The applicant was the director and the legal successor of private company R. By the final judgment of 26/02/2009 the 18th Commercial Appellate Court ordered the Municipal Unitary Enterprise “Direction of Housing and Communal Services of the Kropachevo Settlement” of the Chelyabinsk Region (МУП « Управление Жилищно-коммунального хозяйства посёлка Кропачево », “the MUP”) to pay the company RUB 1,687,980 of debt for oil products provision, RUB 429,150 of penalty and RUB   22,085 of court expenses. On 09/01/2009 the MUP’s founder, the Kropachevo settlement administration, withdrew from the MUP the entirety of assets allocated under its economic control. On 07/10/2009 a court declared the MUP insolvent, and the liquidation proceedings started (the liquidator’s subsidiary liability claim against the administration was rejected by the final judgment of 13/12/2010, as the company had already been unprofitable prior to the assets’ withdrawal). Referring to an assignment agreement between R. and the applicant, on 25/02/2011 the Commercial Court of the Chelyabinsk Region ordered to substitute the claimant company in the proceedings by the applicant. On 25/07/2017 the MUP was liquidated. 2,000     42490/19 31/07/2019   OOO FGU ROSSTROYEKSPERTIZA 2008 Makeychuk Anton Moscow Federal Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit 01/12/2010   01/12/2010   pending More than 12   year(s) and 10 month(s) and 3 day(s)   2,835,242   Judgment debt: RUB 102,080,488 of unpaid debt under a sub-contract agreement and RUB 14,446,984 of interest, to be paid by the “State Unitary Enterprise Spetsstroy of the Ministry of Construction of the Chechen Republic” (“GUP Spetsstroy”). The applicant company’s claims were included in the register of the GUP’s creditors. Insolvency proceedings discontinued on 22/11/2021 (for relevant details, see the above-cited OOO Truzhenik-89 and OOO Firma Moaz [Committee]). 2,000     10179/20 02/02/2020   OOO TAMBOVKONSERV 2013     Commercial Court of the Saratov Region 26/05/2017   04/06/2017   pending More than 6   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 29 day(s)   79,134   Judgment debt: RUB 5,027,007.70 in respect of a debt arising out of a failure to perform contractual obligations, penalty and interest. Debtor company: federal state unitary enterprise FGUP “Konservnyy zavod” (Canned Food Plant) of the Federal Penitentiary Service; core activity: canned food supply to penal colonies, Russian Guard, Ministry of Interior, Russian Armed Forces). Insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor were opened on 03/04/2018 and appear to have been pending. The insolvency manager lodged a subsidiary liability claim against the Federal Penitentiary Service (the owner of the debtor company’s assets), referring, inter alia, (i) to the owner’s decision to merge the debtor FGUP with two other FGUPs in 2016; and (ii) the owner’s approval of a transaction which it had known had been unenforceable, given the FSIN’s instruction of 28/12/2016 to suspend concluding of State contracts with the debtor until further notice. The claim was rejected by the final judgment of 18/10/2019 of the Supreme Court of Russia. 2,000     38321/20 28/07/2020 Choygana Kaldar-oolovna OYUNAROVA 1969 Artemyeva Olga Vladimirovna Kyzyl Kyzyl Town Court 03/02/2017   04/03/2017   pending More than 6   year(s) and 7 month(s)   7,500   Judgment debt: RUB 463,738 in salary arrears and compensation, to be paid by the State Unitary Enterprise “Edinaya Regionalnaya Energeticheskaya Sistema” (founder: Ministry of Property and Land Relationships of the Tyva Republic; subordinated to: Ministry of Industry and Energy of the Tyva Republic). The debtor’s core activity: electricity supply to local population. Enforcement proceedings instituted and discontinued in 2018. The applicant’s subsidiary-liability claim was rejected (latest decision: 28/01/2020, cassation, 8th Cassation Court). On 17/04/2020 the debtor GUP was liquidated without a legal successor. 2,000     12844/21 15/02/2021 Yekaterina Ochirovna BULKHUMOVA 1956     Elista Town Court of the Kalmykia Republic 06/03/2017   16/03/2017   pending More than 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 17 day(s)   15,079   Judgment debt: RUB 934,105.22 of unpaid amount under loan agreements against Republican State Unitary Enterprise “Optika”, liquidated on 30/10/2017. In the subsidiary liability proceedings brought by the applicant against various Republican Ministries, the courts found that the Ministry of Land and Property Relations of the Republic of Kalmykia “had paralysed [the debtor’s] professional activity”, having withdrawn in 2013 its only non-residential premises from the debtor’s economic control without provision of new premises; and that in January 2017 the Republican Treasury had accepted the GUP’s assets on its balance. The courts rejected claims concerning the judgment debt under the judgment of 06/03/2017, as the debt “resulted from entrepreneurship activity of the GUP, exercised at its own risk” (having, by the same judgment, granted similar claims in respect of an unrelated judgment awarding the applicant with salary arears). Final judgment of 24/09/2020 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.