CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 16 March 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 39492/09 Tatyana Viktorovna YEGOROVA against Russia lodged on 15 June 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Tatyana Viktorovna Yegorova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Serpukhov. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19   May 2005 the Justice of the Peace of the 237th Court Circuit of the Serpukhov District of the Moscow Region ordered the Zhilishchnik municipal unitary enterprise MUP (“the MUP”), a local housing and communal services provider, to carry out major repairs on the applicant’s flat. The judgment entered into force on 8   August 2005, as upheld by the Serpukhov Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”). It remained unenforced. On 17   May 2006 enforcement proceedings were initiated by the bailiffs’ service. On 22   August 2007 the Town Court granted a prior complaint by the applicant against the bailiffs and found that they had not been active enough in providing assistance to her and had thus delayed the execution of the judgment. At an unspecified point the respondent company enforced the decision in part. The applicant brought separate proceedings against the MUP claiming damages for delayed enforcement. On 28   August 2008 the Town Court found that the MUP had not carried out certain major pieces of construction work ordered by the judgment. It awarded the applicant 10,000   Russian roubles   (RUB) (approximately 280 euros (EUR)) in respect of the non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the lengthy non-enforcement. It appears that the applicant received the new award but that the initial judgment remained unexecuted. By a separate decision issued on the same date the above court refused to examine the applicant’s claim of RUB   91,860 in respect of the cost of the outstanding essential repairs, as being substantially the same issue raised in the former claim. The court advised the applicant that she was free to request a modification of the method of execution of the initial judgment. On 16   October 2008 the Moscow Regional Court upheld this decision. The MUP further requested a modification of the method of execution of the initial judgment. On 1   December 2008 the Justice of the Peace of the 237th Court Circuit established that some essential repairs had not been carried out and also noted poor quality of the work performed. It ordered a modification in the method of execution of the judgment and payment of compensation for the cost of the outstanding construction work to the applicant in the amount of RUB   37,968 (approximately EUR 1,067). On 12   January 2009 the Town Court upheld that judgment. The compensation was paid on 1   June 2009. The applicant further requested that additional repairs on the flat be carried out arguing that they were covered by the initial judgment. On 22   September 2011 the Town Court rejected her claim in the first instance, having found that the judgment of 19   May 2005 had been properly enforced. On 1   November 2011 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the ruling on appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Relevant domestic provisions on the legal status of State and municipal unitary enterprises with the right of economic control are summarised in Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos.   39483/05 and 40527/10, §§   55-127, 9   October 2014. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour and under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement issue.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the final judgment of 19   May 2005 in the applicant’s favour been fully and timeously enforced?   2.     Are the debts owed by the debtor unitary enterprise to the applicant imputable to the State within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention? Did the debtor company enjoy sufficient operational and institutional independence from the State (see Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, §   114, ECHR 2014, with further references)? Did the company exercise a public duty and was it, by virtue of its functions, placed under the actual strict control of the authorities? In any event, what was the degree of the State or municipal authorities’ actual involvement in the management of the company’s assets, including – but not limited to – disposal of the assets, the authorities’ conduct in the liquidation and restructuring proceedings, giving binding instructions or other circumstances indicating the actual degree of State control in a particular case? Were the powers of control provided for in domestic law actually exercised by the authorities in this case (see Liseytseva and Maslov , cited above, §   206, and Samsonov v.   Russia (dec.), no.   2880/10, 16   September 2014)?   3.     If the judgment in the applicant’s favour has not been fully and timeously enforced and the respondent unitary enterprise’s debts are attributable to the State, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a court under Article   6 of the Convention on account of delayed enforcement? Is Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention applicable to the court award at stake (see Gerasimov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   29920/05 et al., §§   179-80, 1   July 2014, with further references)? If yes, has there been a violation of that provision on account of the delayed enforcement?   4.     If the judgment in the applicant’s favour has not been fully and timeously enforced and the respondent unitary enterprise’s debts are not imputable to the State (see question   2 above), did the State authorities diligently assist the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour (see Kunashko v.   Russia , no.   36337/03, §§   38 ‑ 49, 17   December 2009, with further references)?   5.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaint, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? If in the affirmative, did the applicant exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of their non-enforcement complaint?