THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 55886/07 Yuriy Ivanovich POLIVAYEV against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking , judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

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

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicant s is set out in the appended table.

The applicant s ’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision .

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the violation of the applicants ’ rights guaranteed by the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amount s detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount s would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case s .

On various dates in 2016 the applicant s were sent the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations. The Court has not received a response from the applicant s accepting the terms of the declarations.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant s wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) (see, for example, Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, 9 October 2014, and Samsonov v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 2880/10, 9 October 2014).

Turning to the amounts proposed, the Court notes, in particular, that in the present cases, where the domestic judgments can no longer be enforced due to the liquidation of the debtor enterprises, the Government undertook to pay the applicants the equivalent of the respective judgment debts (see the appendix below). The Court further notes that the amounts proposed in respect of non-pecuniary damage are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Liseytseva and Maslov , cited above, § 233, and Voronkov v. Russia , no. 39678/03 , §§ 67-70, 30 July 2015).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

( non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and

lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Domestic court

Date of judgment

Final on

Domestic award (in Russian roubles)

Debtor company

Liquidation date

Enforcement date

Enforcement delay as acknowledged in the UD

Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant

(in Russian roubles ) [1]

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [2]

55886/07

16/11/2007

Yuriy Ivanovich Polivayev

16/03/1955

Representative:

Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich

Voronezh

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of

Voronezh, 09/04/2002, 22/10/2002

To repair the apartment at a cost of RUB 21,373, and to bring the microclimate in the apartment in conformity with the construction rules

MUP

“ ZhKKh ” of the Zheleznodorozhnyy

District of Voronezh (housing and communal services provider); on 11/06/2004 merged to

MUP MUREP-34, on 07/05/2007 replaced by MUP MUREP-84,

liquidated on 03/12/2012.

Remains partly unenforced

12 years, 9 months, 18 days

21,373

2,000

53003/08

27/09/2008

Yelena Anatolyevna Samotkan

01/09/1956

Justice of the Peace of the 41st Court Circuit

of Yakutsk,

23/10/2009,

23/11/2009

2,864,485

GUP

“ Orkhideya ” of Yakutsk (commercial (shopping mall)),

liquidated on 23/11/2009.

13/08/2012

2 years, 8 months, 21 days

0

1,500

57969/11

29/08/2011

Minzilya Fayzullovna Khaybullina

02/04/1955

Ruslan Radikovich Khaybullin

07/08/1983

1) Kumertau Town Court of Bashkortostan,

16/08/2002,

19/11/2002

2) Kumertau Town Court of Bashkortostan,

13/05/2004,

23/05/2004

1) 172,266 to

Ms Khaybullina ,

107,454 to

Mr Khaybullin

and monthly

payments to both applicants;

2) monthly

payments to both applicants.

MUP

Teploelectroset ’ of Isyangulovo ,

Bashkortostan (electricity supply); it appears that on 30/05/2012 it was liquidated.

1) Enforced,

date n/a

2) Remains partly unenforced

107,278 (jointly to both applicants)

2,000 (jointly to both applicants)

19239/12

28/02/2012

Vladimir Anatolyevich Burmistrov

30/06/1958

Vologda Town Court,

19/01/2011,

18/03/2011

6,000

MUP “ Zhilishny Tsentr ”

(housing centre), liquidated on

09/06/2011

Remains unenforced

5 years, 20 days

6,000

1,500

[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable.

[2] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable.