Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 57876/13 Galina Fedorovna IGNATENKO against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Andreas Zünd, 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. M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov.

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. The first applicant 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 30 September 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova Georges Ravarani Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1

(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

57876/13

Galina Fedorovna IGNATENKO

1933Khabarovsk

Russian

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich ZHIGALKIN

Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk

22/09/2010

RUB 305,046,54

Commercial Court of Khabarovsk Region

16/11/2010

RUB 282,633,82

First proceeding

Submitted and initiated: 22/11/2010

Second proceeding

Submitted: 26/01/2011

Initiated: 28/01/2011

Unlawful omission recognized:

Industrailniy District Court of Khabarovsk

26/05/2011

13/09/2011

10/05/2012

28/02/2013

13/03/2013

06/06/2013

04/08/2016

Compensation proceeding:

Declined

Supreme Court

21/05/2013

Khabarovsk Regional Court

21/06/2013

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.

Article 13 – no need to examine separately.

65409/13

Natalya Igorevna KONOPLEVA

1963Samara

Russian

Denis Yuryevich GUDKOV

Samara Regional Court

18/05/2009

RUB 74,100

Sovetskiy District Court of Samara

30/07/2010

RUB 4,060,61

20/10/2011

RUB 5,873,11

19/12/2011

RUB 14,510,19

Initiated:

22/06/2009

18/08/2010

14/11/2011

24/01/2012

Unlawful omission recognized:

Sovetskiy District Court of Samara

06/02/2012

Compensation proceeding:

Satisfied in part

RUB 3,000 awarded

Supreme Court

07/05/2013

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.

2953/15

Yevgeniy Ivanovich OLEYNIKOV

1962Elista, Republic of Kalmykia

Russian

Nikolay Viktorovich OREL

Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia

18/12/2008

RUB 1,324,400

Elista Town Court

15/03/2010 (default)

13/07/2010

RUB 822,857,09

Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia

09/11/2011

Amount of the pledged apartment

Submitted: 07/07/2009

Initiated: 08/07/2009

Second set initiated:

14/05/2012

Unlawful omission recognized:

Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia

15/08/2013

Compensation proceedings:

Supreme Court

29/09/2014

RUB 15,000

Article 6 – manifestly ill ‑ founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgments in his favour, one of them was enforced. The other one was not enforced due to the applicant’s actions.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, one of judgments was enforced, while two others were not enforced due to the applicant’s actions.

51093/15

Anna Viktorovna

LYAPKO

1957Kalinigrad/Minsk

Russian

Aleksandr Viktorovich

KOSS

Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad

29/10/2009

RUB 336,803,59

Sent by the national court: 19/02/2010

Unlawful omission recognized:

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad

23/12/2013

Compensation proceedings:

Supreme Court

10/07/2015

RUB 30,000

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.

Menu

IGNATENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

IGNATENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI