Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34749/09 Yuriy Nikolayevich ORLOV against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 June 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 G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by their successor in that office, Mr A. Fedorov .

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 brough 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. The applicant in the case Orlov v. Russia , no. 34749/09 also alleged that the above failure to provide him requisite legal assistance resulted in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

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 v. Russia , no. 36337/03, §§ 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 inadmissible the applications.

Done in English and notified in writing on 8 July 2021 .

{signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova Georges Ravarani Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Application no.

Applicant name

Year of birth

Place of residence

Nationality

Represented by

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

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

Reasons for inadmissibility

1

34749/09

Yuriy Nikolayevich

ORLOV

1946Krasnodar Region

Russian

Oksana Vladimirovna

PREOBRAZHENSKAYA

Anapa District Court of Krasnodar Region, 26/02/2008,

RUB 1,492,730.80

(EUR 16 187,52)

Anapa District Court of Krasnodar Region, 16/12/2010,

RUB 502,115.38

(EUR 5,445.06)

Anapa District Court of Krasnodar Region, 02/02/2011

RUB 68, 938

(EUR 747.58)

Krasnodar Regional Court, 13/11/13

dismissed

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

2

10999/13

Oleg Anatolyevich

TURUTIN

1968Lipetsk

Russian

Mikhail Timofeyevich Yekaterina

KLYCHEV

Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk, 25/07/2011

RUB 850,000

(EUR 9,217.60)

Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk, 23/04/2012

RUB 33,941,87

(EUR 368.07)

Sovetskiy District Court of Moscow,

15/10/2012

Dismissed

No evidence of loss. The enforcement proceedings are not finished, therefore, an opportunity is not lost.

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

3

3192/14

Natalya Sergeyevna

DANILOVA

1968Kostroma

Russian

Justice of the Peace of the 8th Court Circuit of Kostroma, 08/09/2008

RUB 248,202.09

(EUR 2,691.56)

Leninskiy District Court of Kostroma,

09/06/2012,

Dismissed

Opportunity of enforcement is not lost

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

4

19191/15

Vladimir Yuryevich

GRIDIN

1970Primorsk Region

Russian

Oleg Olegovich

ANISHCHIK

Khasanskiy District Court of Primorskiy Region, 20/04/2009

RUB 143,830

(EUR 1,559.73)

Khasanskiy District Court of Primorskiy Region, 11/11/2014,

RUB 5200 (EUR 56.39) 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, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them

5

52432/15

Tatyana Vasilyevna

SAMOVIK

1976Krasnodar Region

Russian

Justice of the Peace of the 66 th Court Circuit of Kropotkin, 06/06/2001

Alimony payment of 25 per cent of the applicant ’ s former spouse ’ s income starting from 18/05/2001

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, 11/09/2014

Dismissed

While certain actions of the bailiffs were declared unlawful, there is no causal link between damage and actions (inactions) of bailiff.

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

6

9604/17

Aleksandr Vladimirovich

USHANOV

1956Kaliningrad

Russian

Yegor Leonidovych

BOYCHENKO

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 29/10/2008

RUB 593,003.42

(EUR 64,30.67)

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 22/01/2010

RUB 55,349.09

(EUR 600.22)

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 07/09/2010

RUB 18,962.08

(EUR 205.63)

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 07/09/2010

RUB 79,968.74

(EUR 867.20)

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 18/12/2012

RUB 11,336.32

(EUR 122.93)

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 18/12/2012

RUB 100,206.90

(EUR 1,086.67)

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 26/11/2013

RUB 192,819.91

(EUR 2,090.98)

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 02/09/2016

RUB 49,443.87

(EUR 536.18)

Kaliningrad Regional Court, 22/11/2016

RUB 246,235.28

(EUR 2,670.23)

Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, 13/12/2016

RUB 31,565.40

(EUR 342,30)

Central District Court of Kaliningrad,

16/02/2016

RUB 7,000 (EUR 75.91) non-pecuniary damage

Central District Court of Kaliningrad,

04/07/2016

RUB 1,000 (EUR 10.84) non-pecuniary damage

Central District Court of Kaliningrad,

08/08/2016

Dismissed

Central District Court of Kaliningrad,

07/04/2017

Dismissed

Central District Court of Kaliningrad,

23/06/2017

RUB 5,000 (EUR 54.22) 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, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them

7

50773/17

Aleksandr Alekseyevich

KHARLOV

1965Barnaul

Russian

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich

SHITOV

Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul, 20/06/2014

RUB 719,750

(EUR 7,805.14)

Tsentralnyy District Court of Barnaul,

03/02/2015

Dismissed

Despite the delayed measures, there is no causal link between the alleged damage and actions (inactions) of bailiff.

The enforcement proceedings are not finished, therefore, an opportunity is not lost

Tsentralny District Court of Barnaul,

14/07/2016

RUB 2,000 (EUR 21,69) 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, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them

8

76973/17

Oleg Sergeyevich

DZHURKO

1937Moscow Region

Russian

Yekaterina Borisovna

BELOVA

Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow, 22/11/2013

RUB 1,474,356

(EUR 15,988.26)

Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow,

07/07/2016

Dismissed

The enforcement proceedings are not finished; there is no causal link between damage and actions (inactions) of bailiff.

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

Menu

ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI