CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sE4444500 { height:37.1pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sCDCA8134 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8BDAE0D { margin-left:12.51pt; padding-left:5.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s9EA2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s299B0C58 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 5 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35043/11 Tatyana Yuryevna ANDREYEVA and Others against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. The application numbers, dates, the applicants’ names and their personal details are set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On various dates the applicants brought proceedings against private parties and obtained final court decisions in their favour. The decisions, by which private persons were ordered to pay the applicants certain sums and perform certain acts, became final and enforceable. The Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings against the debtors. Discontented with the lack of progress in the enforcement proceedings, the applicants applied to have the bailiffs’ actions or inaction recognised as unlawful. The domestic courts ruled in the applicants’ favour. The applicants initiated civil proceedings under Article no. 1069 of the Civil Code against the respective State authorities, claiming monetary relief for the State’s failure to assist them in enforcing the judgments against the private parties. Some applicants were denied monetary relief, while others found their award to be too small. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a failure by the State to provide them adequate and efficient legal assistance in the enforcement of judgements against private parties. Mr Ivanyuk also complains under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention that a failure by the State to assist him in the enforcement of the judgments resulted in a violation of his property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour been enforced? If so, what is the date of the full enforcement of each judgement? 2.     Did the State authorities duly assist the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments against private parties, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (see Kesyan v. Russia , no. 36496/02, §§ 64-65, 19 October 2006; Kunashko v. Russia , no. 36337/03, §§ 38-39, 17 December 2009; and Smagilov v. Russia (dec.), no.   24324/05, § 37, 13 November 2014)? 3.     Did the applicants exhaust the available domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints concerning the State’s assistance in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour? If so, were they provided appropriate redress? 4.     In application no. 54986/15 did the actions or inaction of the State authorities in the enforcement proceedings against private parties preclude further enforcement of the judgments and thus result in a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention rights of Mr Ivanyuk? (see Krivonogova v.   Russia (dec.), no.   74694/01, 1 April 2004)       APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Represented by Domestic judgments in applicants’ favour Article no. 1069 proceedings (final domestic decisions)   35043/11 13/05/2011 Tatyana Yuryevna ANDREYEVA 13/02/1960 Nizhniy Novgorod   Irina Yuryevna ANDREYEVA 19/10/1992 Nizhniy Novgorod   Olga Yuryevna ANDREYEVA 21/08/1994 Nizhniy Novgorod       Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod on 7 December 1995 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 21 December 2010, 17 May 2011     55310/14 17/07/2014 Yuriy Iosifovich MIKHAYLOVSKIY 03/12/1974 Moscow     Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow on 5 November 2008, 9 June 2011   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 2 April 2014   2953/15 23/12/2014 Yevgeniy Ivanovich OLEYNIKOV 29/08/1962 Elista     Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya on 18 December 2008, 9 November 2011   Elistinskiy Town Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya on 15 March 2010 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 29 September 2014   19191/15 09/04/2015 Vladimir Yuryevich GRIDIN 22/08/1970 Slavyanka, Primorye Region     Khasanskiy District Court of the Primorye Region on 20 April 2009   Primorye Regional Court on 11 February 2015   51093/15   09/10/2015 Anna Viktorovna LYAPKO 29/03/1957 Minsk     Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad on 29 October 2009 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 10 July 2015   52432/15 16/10/2015 Tatyana Vasilyevna SAMOVIK 18/07/1976 Kropotkin, Krasnodar Region     Justice of the Peace of Circuit no.   66 of Kropotkin on 6 June 2001   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 18 June 2015   54986/15 21/10/2015 Yuriy Lvovich IVANYUK 24/01/1960 Snezhinsk, Chelyabinsk Region     Kurchatovskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk on 27 February 2002, 24 February 2004, 12 May 2004, 30 March 2005, 9 March 2007   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 5 June 2015     50773/17 10/07/2017 Aleksandr Alekseyevich KHARLOV 30/01/1965 Barnaul   Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SHITOV Industrialniy District Court of Barnaul, Altay Region on 20 June 2014 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 26 January 2017