CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 octobre 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 } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s67CDEFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s2B230C99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 26 October 2018   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 19709/18 and 29409/18 Yelena Nikolayevna MUSKATINA against Russia and Sergey Petrovich FILIPPOV against Russia lodged on 06 April 2018 and 09 June 2018 respectively   1.     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 table below. The circumstances of the cases 2.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     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, became final and enforceable. 4.     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. 5.     The applicants initiated civil proceedings under Article 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. The applicants were denied monetary relief. COMPLAINTS 6.     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 judgments against private parties. 7.     Mr Filippov 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 judgment 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.   29409/18 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 Filippov (see Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no.   74694/01, 1 April 2004)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Domestic judgment in applicant’s favour Article 1069 proceedings (final domestic decisions)   19709/18 06/04/2018 Yelena Nikolayevna MUSKATINA 13/08/1978 Moscow   Sergey Andreevich MUSKATIN     Khoroshevskiy Inter-Municipal People’s Court of the Moscow North ‑ West Administrative Circuit on 10 April 1996   Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 351 of “Airport” District of Moscow on 13 February 2015   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 9 February 2018         29409/18 09/06/2018 Sergey Petrovich FILIPPOV 20/12/1958 Mikhaylovka, Volgograd Region     Mikhailovskiy District of the Volgograd Region on 13 December 2010   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 30 January 2018