Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20851/05 Buranbay Abdullovich AYSULOV against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 October 2021 as a Committee composed of:

María Elósegui, President, Darian Pavli, Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3. The applicants alleged that the national authorities had failed to provide them with the necessary assistance in enforcement of the final court decisions against private parties.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

5. The applicants had final decisions in their favour against private parties rendered by national courts, on various dates, to be enforced. They submitted the writs of execution for these decisions to the bailiffs’ service and enforcement proceedings were initiated, which brought no or insufficient results. The applicants lodged civil actions against the bailiffs’ service, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage by the lengthy non ‑ enforcement of the judgments. The particulars of the relevant domestic proceedings are presented in the appended table.

6. The provisions of domestic law concerning execution of judgments were previously set out in the case Kunashko v. Russia (no. 36337/03, §§ 27-30, 17 December 2009) and, concerning compensation for damage caused by public authorities and their officials, in the case Smagilov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 24324/05, §§ 17-31, 13 November 2014).

COMPLAINTS

7. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to assist them in the enforcement of the final judgments against private parties. Certain applicants also alleged that the above failure to provide them requisite legal assistance resulted in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Some applicants also lodged an accessory complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly.

9. The applicants referring to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to assist them in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour. The Government contested that argument.

10. The Court notes that the applicable general principles are well ‑ established in the case-law. Notably, when final judgments are issued against “private” defendants, the State’s positive obligation consists of providing a legal arsenal allowing individuals to obtain, from their evading debtors, payment of sums awarded by those judgments. However this positive obligation is not that of result, but one of means (see, among many other authorities, Dachar v. France (dec.), no. 42338/98, 6 June 2000; Fuklev v. Ukraine , no. 71186/01, § 84, 7 June 2005; and Kunashko , cited above, §§ 38 ‑ 39, 17 December 2009).

11. The Court, having carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table and having regard to its case-law, concludes that, in the light of aforementioned and the material in its possession, the State authorities have provided requisite assistance to the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour, and impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to them. In view of the above, the applications are manifestly ill-founded, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 November 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova María Elósegui Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments against private parties)

Application

no.

Applicant name

Year of birth

Place of residence

Nationality

Represented by

Domestic judgment in applicant’s favour (court, date, award)

Start date of enforcement/submission of the writ to bailiff

Article 1069 proceedings (final decision – court, date, award/reason to refuse)

Reasons for inadmissibility

1.

20851/05

Buranbay Abdullovich AYSULOV

1951Krasnodar

Russian

Self-representation

Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar

20/08/2002

RUB 251,900

Issued and sent to the bailiffs:

02/09/2002

Initiated:

10/10/2002

Unlawful omission recognized:

Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod

17/03/2005 (not sending copies of documents)

Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod

28/09/2007

22/11/2007

03/10/2008

Compensation proceeding:

Declined

Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod

19/04/2006

No causal link

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

2.

8521/07

Valentina Mikhaylovna GANIMAN

1946Troitsk, Chelyabinsk Region

Russian

Troitsk Town Court

28/02/2000

RUB 33,215.50

Indexation of the award

Troitsk Town Court

22/09/2005

RUB 72,775.87

Troitsk Town Court

24/08/2007

RUB 83,189.97

Troitsk Town Court

20/04/2009

RUB 101,599.91

Initiated:

07/03/2000

Unlawful omission recognized:

Troitsk Town Court

05/12/2005

Compensation claim:

Dismissed

Chelyabinsk Regional Court

14/09/2006

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

3.

53213/08

Vladimir Fedorovich KUDRYAVTSEV

1950Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan

Russian

Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa

15/12/1997

RUB 221,055

Initiated:

12/11/1998

Unlawful omission recognised and compensation proceedings:

Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

25/03/2008

RUB 50,000 of non-pecuniary damages

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

4.

40289/10

Aleksandr Vasilyevich YERMOLAYEV

1949Rtischevo, Saratov Region

Russian

Self-Representation

Commercial Court of the Saratov Region

01/12/1999

RUB 250,000

Initiated:

11/12/2000

Unlawful omission recognised:

Commercial Court of Saratov Region

12/10/2005

Commercial Court of Saratov Region

22/11/2006

Compensation proceedings:

Federal Commercial Court of the Volga Circuit

26/07/2010

Declined

The judgment is against a private party, and thus, falls out of scope of the Compensation Act 2010

Saratov Regional Court

04/05/2011

Declined

No causal link

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

Article 13 – no need to examine separately.

5.

20536/11

Marina Aleksandrovna MAKSIMOVA

14/04/1969

Volgograd

Russian

Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd

16/12/1999

Alimony equal to 25% of the income + additional maintenance equal to 25% of the income

Issued:

16/12/1999

Unlawful omission recognized and compensation proceeding:

Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd

20/07/2010

RUB 5,000

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

6.

35043/11

Tatyana Yuryevna ANDREYEVA

1960Irina Yuryevna

ANDREYEVA

1992Olga Yuryevna

ANDREYEVA

1994Nizhniy Novgorod

Russian

Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod

07/12/1995

Alimony equal to 1/3 of the income in respect of children + additional maintenance equal to RUR 60,500/month between 31/01/1995 and 21/02/1996 in respect of the first applicant

Unknown, the case file was destroyed due to the expiry of the statutory time-limit for its storage

Duplicates issued:

02/04/2002

Initiated:

07/07/2004

Unlawful omission recognised:

Priokskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod

06/07/2006

25/04/2008

03/11/2010

Compensation proceedings:

Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod

30/09/2010

RUB 26,164.20

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

17/11/2011

Dismissed

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, the latter was fully enforced.

7.

55474/12

Farida Radikovna BIKAYEVA

1963Perm

Russian

Industrialniy District Court of Perm

30/03/2009

RUB 2,706,018

30/07/2010

RUB 1,283,120

05/08/2011

RUB 1,014,391.43

Interim measure

05/03/2009

Main enforcement proceedings

27/05/2009

22/11/2010

09/11/2011

Unlawful omission recognised:

Perm District Court of the Perm Region

03/02/2011

07/06/2011

17/10/2011

Compensation proceedings:

Industrialnyy District Court of Perm

11/04/2012

RUB 100,200

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

Article 13 – no need to examine separately.

8.

59958/13

Maksim Grigoryevich GORLOV

1939Moscow

Russian

Self-Representation

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow

22/03/2006

RUB 244,907

Initiated:

17/04/2006

Unlawful omission recognised:

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow

10/03/2009

20/04/2009

29/06/2009

Compensation proceedings:

Supreme Court

19/06/2013

RUB 5,000

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

9.

18862/14

Ivan Iosifovich

TYAGLO

1943Yessentuki, Stavropol Region

Russian

Viktor Vladimirovich POLYAKOV

Yessentuki Town Court

23/10/2008

RUB 1,813,100

Indexation of the award:

Yessentuki Town Court

18/06/2009

RUB 136,060

Yessentuki Town Court

22/03/2010

RUB 135,419.76

Yessentuki Town Court

15/02/2011

RUB 132,766.74

Yessentuki Town Court

26/03/2012

RUB 159,075

Yessentuki Town Court

24/04/2013

RUB 156,897.22

Initiated

02/12/2008

Unlawful omission recognised:

Stavropol Regional Court

19/01/2010

Compensation proceedings:

Supreme Court

07/04/2014

Declined

No causal link

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

10.

55310/14

Yuriy Iosifovich MIKHAYLOVSKIY

1974Moscow

Russian

Self-Representation

Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow

05/11/2008

RUB 1,495,103.30

Indexation of the award:

Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow

09/06/2011

RUB 343,020.70

Initiated:

19/02/2009

Unlawful omission recognised:

Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow

24/12/2009

Moscow City Court

08/11/2009

Compensation proceedings:

Supreme Court

02/04/2014

RUB 3,000

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

11.

18827/17

Elena Mikhaylovna KUZNETSOVA

1966Tver

Russian

Artem Yuryevich BRANNTSKIY

Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok

28/02/2007

RUB 749,408

Initiated:

01/06/2007

Unlawful omission recognised:

Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok

28/04/2012

Compensation proceedings:

Primorskiy Regional Court

08/02/2016

RUB 50,000

non-pecuniary damage

Leninskiy Distrivt Court of Vladivostok

RUB 107,167,88

legal costs

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

Article 13 – no need to examine separately.

12.

26352/17

Valeriy Mikhaylovich TOKUNOV

1954Anapa

Russian

Susanna Ilyinichna ARUTYUNYAN

Interim measure:

Anapa Town Court

14/01/2011

RUB 3,025,919

Main proceedings:

Krasnodar Regional Court

05/11/2013

RUB 2,413,012.40

Initiated:

07/03/2013

Compensation awarded:

Supreme Court

21/09/2016

RUB 1,300,000 of pecuniary damage and RUB 100,000 of non-pecuniary damage

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

13.

42552/17

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BARSUKOV

06/06/1978

Kursk

Russian

Andrey Nikolayevich

GOLOVACHEV

Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd

28/01/2003

RUB 169,530

Indexation of the award:

Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd

10/07/2008

RUB 80,018,18

Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd

11/02/2011

RUB 59,165,33

Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd

30/04/2014

RUB 26,288,12

Initiated:

03/04/2003

Supreme Court

15/02/2017

Declined

No direct causal link

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

Article 13 – no need to examine separately.

14.

19709/18

Yelena Nikolayevna MUSKATINA

1978Moscow

Russian

Self-Representation

Khoroshevskiy Intermunicipal People’s Court of the North-Western Administrative Circuit of Moscow

10/04/1996

Monthly alimony payments equal to 1/4 of the income in respect of a child (1995 y.o.b.)

Penalty for failure to pay alimony payments

Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow

22/04/2015

RUB 8,643,371

(substitution of the applicant in the domestic proceedings, the sum was awarded to the applicant’s son who by that time was an adult)

Initiated:

27/08/2013

Unlawful omission recognised

Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow

18/08/2016

Compensation proceedings:

Supreme Court

09/02/2018

Declined

No causal link

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.

15.

29409/18

Sergey Petrovich FILIPPOV

1958Mikhaylovka, Volgograd Region

Russian

Anton Valeryevich GAVRILOV

Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region

13/12/2010

RUB 1,230,957

Interim measure:

16/12/2010

Main proceedings:

07/04/2011

Unlawful omission recognised:

Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region

25/12/2015

Compensation proceedings:

Supreme Court

30/01/2018

Declined

No causal link

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.

Menu

AYSULOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

AYSULOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI