Communicated on 3 April 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 34336/10 OOO TRUZHENIK - 89 against Russia lodged on 22 May 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, OOO Truzhenik - 89, is a company incorporated under Russian law and based in Yukerch-Keloy , Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by Mr I.Y. Timishev , a lawyer practising in Nalchik.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant company sued State Unitary Enterprise “ Spetsstroy ” of the Ministry of Construction of the Chechen Republic ( ГУП « Спецстрой ») to obtain payment for service debts.

On 3 November 2009 the Commercial Court of the Chechen Republic awarded the applicant company the equivalent of 492,736 euros (EUR) . The judgment became final on 3 December 2009.

According to the applicant company the judgment has remained unenforced to date.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant company complains about non-enforcement of the court award in their favour.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Are the debts owed by State Unitary Enterprise “ Spetsstroy ” to the applicant company imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and, if so, to what extent (see Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia , no s . 39483/05 and 40527/10 , 9 October 2014 )?

2. Was State Unitary Enterprise “ Spetsstroy ” insolvent and was it subject to liquidation?

3. Have the final judgments in the applicants ’ favour (tabulated below) been fully and timeously enforced? If not, has the State ’ s continuing failure to enforce them violated the applicants ’ right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

4. If the companies ’ debts are not imputable to the State (see Question 1 above), did the State authorities diligently assist the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour (see Kunashko v. Russia , no. 36337/03, §§ 38 ‑ 49, 17 December 2009, with further references)?