The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.\u00a0The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Myasin and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, Having deliberated in private on 9 September 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the convention AND ARTICLE\u00a01 OF PROTOCOL No.\u00a01 to the convention<\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:<\/p>\n Article 6 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n Article 1 of Protocol No. 1<\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.\u201d<\/p>\n 7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a \u201chearing\u201d for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357\/91, \u00a7 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 II).<\/p>\n 8. In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia (nos. 29920\/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014), the Court has already found a violation in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 9. Having regard to the nature of the judicial awards in the applicants\u2019 favour (see the appended table for further detail), the Court considers that the applicants had, by virtue of these judgments, a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 12. The applicants also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour in contravention of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n 13. The Court has already noted the existence of a new domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced in the wake of the pilot judgment, which enables those concerned to seek compensation for damage sustained as a result of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia\u00a0(dec.), no.\u00a035555\/05\u00a0and 6 others, 2 May 2017). Even though the remedy was \u2013 or still is \u2013 available to the applicants, the Court reiterates that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court, to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0230).<\/p>\n 14. However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, having regard to the facts of the case and given all the material in its possession, the Court, as in its previous decisions, declares these complaints admissible but considers that it is not necessary to give a separate ruling on them in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and\u00a0Others v. Russia, nos. 13122\/11 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and\u00a0Others v. Russia, no. 44387\/04 and 11 others, \u00a7\u00a7 21-24, 25 October 2011).<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0187-200), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 17. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.<\/p>\n 18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;<\/p>\n 4. Holds, in respect of all applications, that it is not necessary to give a separate ruling of the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 September 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Darian Pavli __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
\nCASE OF MYASIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 11050\/06 and 8 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n30 September 2021<\/p>\n
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPeeter Roosma, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\n(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n