CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 avril 2026

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD91B6282 { width:117.75pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s50597860 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF OOO GELENDZHIK-SNAB v. RUSSIA (Application no. 48990/13)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 April 2026         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of OOO Gelendzhik-Snab v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 July 2013. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr R.A. Zarbeyev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. 3.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a final domestic judicial decision given against a federal State unitary enterprise (FGUP) and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW         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 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 TO THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a final domestic judicial decision given in its favour against a federal State unitary enterprise. The applicant company relied on Article   6 § 1 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.     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. In particular, the Court finds that the present case is similar to Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, §§   208-14) from the standpoint of the debtor federal State unitary enterprise’s functions and the degree of actual control exercised by the authorities over its activities (see further Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos.   64098/09 and 6 others, §§   93-94, 15   October 2019). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the debtor federal State unitary enterprise did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State. Accordingly, the State is to be held responsible under the Convention for the debts owned by the debtor unitary enterprise to the applicant company under the final judgment in its favour. The authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the final judicial decision in the applicant company’s favour. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     The applicant company complained, in substance, that it did not have an effective remedy in respect of its non-enforcement complaint. This aspect of the case was communicated to the Government under Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 8-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on this complaint (see, mutatis mutandis , Belev and Others v.   Bulgaria , nos.   16354/02 and 40   others, §   100, 2   April 2009; and OOO Truzhenik-89 and OOO Firma Moaz v. Russia [Committee], nos. 34336/10 and 30108/13, § 25, 8 March 2022).    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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 sum indicated in the appended table. 14.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment which remains enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16   September 2022;      Declares the complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non ‑ enforcement of the final judgment in the applicant company’s favour given against the federal State unitary enterprise (see appended table);      Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic judicial decision referred to in the appended table;      Holds   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 30 April 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application 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) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of 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 per applicant (in euros) [1] 48990/13 12/07/2013   OOO GELENDZHIK-SNAB 2002 Zarbeyev Rustem Abdullovich St Petersburg Murmansk Region Commercial Court, 30/11/2009   28/12/2009   pending More than 16 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s)   Judgment debt: RUB 59,297,601 (EUR 1,353,750), representing compensation for a failure to pay services provided under a construction agreement, interest and legal expenses. Debtor company: FGUP "Voyenno-Morskoye stroitelnoye upravleniye Severnogo Flota” (Federal State Unitary Enterprise Navy and Military Construction Department of the North Fleet) of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. According to available documents, it provided various construction and installation services to the Russian Navy, and its core activity was military housing construction. By Decision no.   1226-p of 20   August 2009 the Russian Government included the debtor company in a list of companies and organisations of strategic importance. In 2009 insolvency proceedings commenced in respect of the debtor company. The applicant company’s claims were included in the third line of the creditors’ claims. On 22/03/2011 the Commercial Court of the Murmansk Region declared the debtor company insolvent and ordered the commencement of liquidation proceedings. in the relevant domestic proceedings, the Ministry of Defence, acting as the authority responsible for unified state policy in the relevant economic sector in respect of the debtor company, which was of strategic importance, confirmed to the domestic court that there were insufficient funds to finance the debtor company. The Ministry also submitted to the domestic court that the debtor company’s participation in the State defence order was no longer planned, that the debtor FGUP was no longer producing anything and lacked relevant facilities or infrastructure at the time. The Ministry submitted to the domestic court that initiating the liquidation procedure would contribute to the proportionate satisfaction of creditors’ claims and “ease social tension” in Severomorsk, the town in which the debtor company was incorporated. In 2011, the local military investigative department declined to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged premeditated bankruptcy due to a lack of evidence of a crime. At some point the tax authorities requested to declare several former heads of the debtor company subsidiary liable for its debts. They alleged that the enterprise had displayed signs of insolvency as early as October 2005, yet they failed to lodge a bankruptcy petition as required by law. On 11/07/2016 the Commercial Court of the Murmansk Region dismissed the claim. No information was submitted about any appeal against that decision. On 19/09/2016 the Commercial Court of the Murmansk Region discontinued the insolvency proceedings and ordered the FGUP’ s liquidation. The claims which had not been satisfied during the liquidation process, including the applicants’ claims, were considered settled. The debtor company’s liquidation was recorded in the Register of Legal Entities on 28/12/2016, at which point the FGUP ceased to exist. The judgment in favour of the applicant company was not enforced. In 2022 the applicant company informed the Court that in the meantime insolvency proceedings had been set in motion in respect of it. It appears that the applicant company has not been liquidated. 2,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.