THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\nI.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES\u00a06 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE\u00a01 OF PROTOCOL No.\u00a01 ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE STATE AUTHORITES<\/p>\n
32.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained about the authorities\u2019 failure to enforce four judgments in her favour given against the State authorities and the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaint. She referred to Articles\u00a06 and 13 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.1, which read as follows:<\/p>\n
Article 6<\/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 13<\/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
Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01<\/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
33.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies. In particular, she had not lodged a court action against the bailiffs, did not claim non-pecuniary damage in court proceedings and did not complain about the authorities\u2019 inaction. They further noted that the judgment of 23\u00a0June 2005 remained unenforced due to the applicant\u2019s own conduct as she refused to cooperate with the authorities and thus obstructed enforcement.<\/p>\n
34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained her claim.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No. 1<\/strong><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibilty<\/em><\/p>\n35.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the complaint about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 11\u00a0November 2004, the Court notes that the judgment was set aside on the applicant\u2019s own request in February 2005. However, she only complained about the non-enforcement on 12 July 2007. The Court notes in addition that all subsequent proceedings concerning the matter were discontinued as early as in December 2005. Accordingly, her complaint in respect of the judicial award of 11\u00a0November 2004 was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
36.\u00a0\u00a0As regards other judgments issued against the State authorities dated28\u00a0November 2002, 28\u00a0August 2006 and 23\u00a0June 2005, the Court notes the Government\u2019s argument that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of this complaint. The Court reiterates that at the time when the applicant brought her complaint about the length of proceedings to the Court, that is in July 2007, there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing either monetary obligations or obligations in kind on the domestic authorities (see Burdov v.\u00a0Russia (no.\u00a02), no.\u00a033509\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0101-17, ECHR 2009, and Gerasimov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a029920\/05 and 10\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0157-66, 1\u00a0July 2014). As regards the domestic remedies introduced by the Compensation Act in 2010 and 2017, the Court reiterates its settled approach that in any event 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 Burdov (no.\u00a02), cited above, \u00a7\u00a0144, and Gerasimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0230). In line with this principle, the Court decides to proceed with the examination of the present case anddismisses the Government\u2019s objection as regards the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant.<\/p>\n
37.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the non-enforcement complaint concerning the judgments of 28\u00a0November 2002, 28\u00a0August 2006 and 23\u00a0June 2005 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/em><\/p>\n38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the judgment of 28\u00a0August 2006 was enforced with a delay of one year and slightly more than three months, and the judicial awards of 28\u00a0November 2002 and 23\u00a0June 2005 had remained unenforced until at least July 2009, that is for six years and seven months and four years and one month after their entry into force, respectively. The Court notes the Government\u2019s objection concerning the applicant\u2019s uncooperative behaviour in so far as the enforcement of the judgment of 23\u00a0June 2005 was concerned. It notes, however, that the Government had not produced any documents in support of their submissions. In any event, it is not contested by the Government that the first attempts to enforce the judgment were made in October 2008, that is more than three years since the judgment\u2019s entry into force.<\/p>\n
39.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, such delays are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Convention (see, among others, Kozodoyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a02701\/04 and 4\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a011, 15\u00a0January 2009).<\/p>\n
40.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has frequently found violations of Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among many others, Burdov (no.\u00a02), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a062 et seq.; Koshelevaand Others v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a09046\/07, \u00a7\u00a019, 17\u00a0January 2012; and Gerasimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0169-71).<\/p>\n
41.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It finds that by failing, for a significant period of time, to comply with the enforceable judgments in the applicant\u2019s favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of her right to a court, and that such failure constituted an unjustified interference with the applicants\u2019 right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.<\/p>\n
42.\u00a0\u00a0There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 in the present case on account of the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments of 28\u00a0November 2002, 23\u00a0June 2005 and 28\u00a0August 2006 in the applicant\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a013 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n43.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already noted the existence of a domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing monetary obligations, as well as the obligations of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced by the 2010 Compensation Act, subsequently amended in 2016. The Court has found that the Compensation Act in principle meets the criteria set out in Burdov (no.\u00a02) and Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment and provides the applicants with a potentially effective remedy in respect of their non-enforcement complaints (see Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a034-40,in so far as the compensation for non-enforcement of the monetary awards is concerned; and Shtolts and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a087-116 and \u00a7\u00a0123, in so far as the compensation for delayed enforcement of judgments imposing obligations in kind is concerned). Even though the remedy was \u2013 and still is \u2013 available to the applicant, the Court reiterates its findings in paragraph\u00a036 above that it would be unfair to request herto bring her claimsagain before domestic tribunals.<\/p>\n
44.\u00a0\u00a0However, in the light of the adoption of the domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article\u00a013 in the present case (see, see, for the Court\u2019s reasoning in many similar cases concerning both monetary awards and obligations in kind, Korotyayeva and Others, nos.\u00a013122\/11 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a040, 18\u00a0July 2017, and Tkhyegepso and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a044387\/04 and 11\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a021-24, 25\u00a0October 2011).<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Non-enforcement of a judgment against the municipal unitary enterprise and the alleged lack of an effective remedy<\/strong><\/p>\n45.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 19\u00a0November 2004 given in her favour against the municipal unitary enterprise and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. She relied on Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention and on Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01, all cited in paragraph\u00a032 above.<\/p>\n
46.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the unitary enterprise in question was a commercial organisation independent from the authorities and that the debts of the enterprise were not attributable to the State for the same reasons as in Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0137-41). The judgment could not have been enforced in full due to the lack of funds and the company\u2019s subsequent liquidation.Referring to Article\u00a061 of the Civil Code, they submitted that the creditors\u2019 claims which had not been satisfied during the liquidation procedure due to the debtor\u2019s shortage of funds, including the applicant\u2019s claims, were considered as settled. In their further observations they submitted that the debtor company had been liquidated in 2004, as a result of restructuring into an open joint-stock company. Finally, they submitted that the State obligations were limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the court award and argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as she had not lodged a court action against the bailiffs.<\/p>\n
47.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained her claim.<\/p>\n
48.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that, in order to decide on the operational and institutional independence of a given municipal unitary enterprise with the right of economic control, the Court has to assess the nature of the enterprise\u2019s functions and the degree of actual State or municipal authorities\u2019 involvement in the management of the enterprise\u2019s assets (see Liseytseva and Maslov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0204-06).The Court notes that the parties in the present case did not provide detailed information on the exact scope and nature of the debtor unitary enterprise\u2019s activity. It appears that the administration delegated its function to collect the communal charges to the enterprise and further decided to restructure it. However, in the Court\u2019s view, it is not necessary to determine the issue of the State\u2019s responsibility, as this part of the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reason.<\/p>\n
49.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the Court notes that, at the time when the application was lodged with the Court, the debtor unitary enterprise in question no longer existed for about three years, as on 14\u00a0December 2004 it had been restructured in the form of transformation.<\/p>\n
50.\u00a0\u00a0The Court is not convinced by the Government\u2019s reference to Article\u00a061 of the Civil Code, as the unitary enterprise in the present case was discontinued as a result of its restructuring in the form of transformation. Accordingly, it appears that the rights and obligations of the restructured legal entity were to be transferred to a newly-created legal entity in accordance with the transfer and acceptance act (see paragraph\u00a020 above) a document which would, in the normal course of events, define the scope of the newly-created company\u2019s obligationsfor the debts of the restructured enterprise (see paragraph\u00a021 above).<\/p>\n
51.\u00a0\u00a0In any event, the Court observes that the judgment against the unitary enterprise in the present case became final on 22\u00a0December 2004, and the writs of execution against the debtor unitary enterprise were issued in January 2005, when the debtor had no longer existed (see paragraph\u00a014 above). It is therefore unclear whether the debt towards the applicant had been included either in the transfer and acceptance act (not submitted by the parties) or any other relevant document determining the scope of the OAO\u2019s legal succession. Further, the initial judgment has never been amended or modified to change the debtor. Otherwise, no court decision, or any other document or information concerning the legal succession in respect of the judgment debt has been submitted to the Court.<\/p>\n
52.\u00a0\u00a0Similarly, the parties did not provide any information to allow the conclusion that the debts of the OAO were attributable to the State.<\/p>\n
53.\u00a0\u00a0In the absence of any additional information on the matter, the Court concludes that the complaint about the non-enforcement of the judgment against the unitary enterprise was lodged more than six months after it had been discontinued due to restructuring (see, mutatis mutandis, Bichenok v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no.\u00a013731\/08, 31\u00a0March 2015) and is, in any event, manifestly ill-founded in so far as the issue of the transfer of the judgment debt to the OAO is concerned.<\/p>\n
54.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01, 3\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
55.\u00a0\u00a0It remains to be ascertained that the State authorities provided due assistance to the applicant in execution of the judgment.<\/p>\n
56.\u00a0\u00a0It transpires from the Government\u2019s submissions that the writs of execution, issued on 1\u00a0February 2005, were only returned to the bailiffs\u2019 officein September 2007. By that time, the debtor specified in the writs \u2013 the municipal unitary enterprise \u2013 had no lodger existed for more than two years. The parties did not refer to any action taken by the bailiffs\u2019 service during that period to assist the applicant in enforcement of the judicial award in her favour.<\/p>\n
57.\u00a0\u00a0However, the Court further notes the Government\u2019s objection concerning the applicant\u2019s failure to bring any proceedings against the bailiffs. The Court reiterates its findings to the effect that a civil action for damages under Article\u00a01069 of the Civil Code constituted and effective domestic remedy in respect of an alleged failure of the national authorities to assist the applicant in enforcing a judgment against a private party (see Smagilov v. Russia (dec.), no.\u00a024324\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a043-48, 13\u00a0November 2014). The Court notes that the applicant \u2013 who had been previously actively involved in several proceedings against the bailiffs concerning their other alleged omissions, and who had sent various complaints to authorities in respect of the present count of non-enforcement \u2013 did not bring either tort proceedings in respect of the bailiffs\u2019alleged inaction in 2005-2007 or a court complaint concerning the bailiffs\u2019alleged failure to act in good time to enforce the judicial award of 19\u00a0November 2004 (see Moskaleva and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), nos.\u00a02664\/04 and 6\u00a0others, 17\u00a0April 2018, operative part and lines\u00a02\u20114 and 8 of the Appendix).In any event, in the absence of either any domestic court\u2019s decision on the matter, or more details from the parties, or even copies of the relevant basic documents such as a decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings, the Court does not have sufficient information in its possession to decide on the scope of the legal assistance provided to the applicant, or the effect of any authorities\u2019 actions or inaction on the progress of the enforcement, or the prospects of enforcement of the judgment after the debtor had ceased to exist in 2004.<\/p>\n
58.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01, 3\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
59.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has found above that the non-enforcement complaint did not give rise to an arguable claim of a breach of a Convention right. Accordingly, Article\u00a013 of the Convention does not apply.<\/p>\n
60.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded incompatible rationemateriae and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Annulment of the judgment of 11\u00a0November 2004<\/strong><\/p>\n61.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant may be further understood to complain in broad terms about the annulment of the judgment of 11\u00a0November 2004 in her favour.<\/p>\n
62.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the quashing of a final and binding judgment is an instantaneous act (see, among many other authorities, Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no.\u00a069582\/01, 12\u00a0February 2004). The judgment in issue clearly ceased to be binding and enforceable on 9\u00a0February 2005 (see paragraph 9 above). The applicant has not argued that she was unaware of those proceedings and their result. However, she only lodged her complaint on 12\u00a0July 2007, that is, outside the six-month time-limit.<\/p>\n
63.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
64.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a041 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
A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n65.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR\u00a07,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
66.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disputed the claims as excessive and unfounded and stated that the applicant had failed to submit any calculations, details or evidence in support of her claims in respect of pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
67.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes at the outset that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to ensure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgments referred to in the Appendix which remain enforced.<\/p>\n
68.\u00a0\u00a0The Court accepts the Government\u2019s argument to the effect that the applicant had failed to submit itemized claims or evidence in respect of pecuniary damage and rejects her claims under this head. On the other hand, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR\u00a07,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n69.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not make a claim in respect of costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n70.\u00a0\u00a0The 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>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments of 11 and 19\u00a0November 2004 and the quashing of the judgment of 19\u00a0November 2004, as well as the complaint about the lack of an effective remedy against the non-enforcement of the judgment of 19\u00a0November 2004 inadmissible;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares admissible the complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant\u2019s favour specified in the Appendix;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.1 on account of the non-enforcement of the domestic judicial awards against the State authorities specified in the Appendix;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Decidesthat there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article\u00a013 concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the non-enforcement of the domestic awards against the State authorities specified in the Appendix;<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic judgments specified in the Appendix which remain unenforced;<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR\u00a07,000 (seven thousand euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amountat a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 December 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
APPENDIX<\/p>\n
\n\n\nDomestic court<\/strong><\/td>\nDate of the judgment<\/strong><\/td>\n| Award<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nRespondent authority<\/strong><\/td>\nEnforcement status<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Yakutsk Town Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n | 28\/11\/2002<\/p>\n 05\/12\/2002<\/p>\n <\/td>\n | RUB 500<\/td>\n | Federal Postal Service of the Krasnodar Region<\/td>\n | Not paid until at least July 2009 (date of the Government\u2019s observations)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 28\/08\/2006<\/p>\n 10 days later<\/p>\n <\/td>\n | RUB 465,000<\/td>\n | Yakutsk Town Administration<\/td>\n | Enforced in full 22\/01\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nJustice of the Peace, 41st<\/sup> Court Circuit of Yakutsk<\/td>\n| 23\/06\/2005<\/p>\n 10 days later<\/td>\n | Obligation to repair the applicant\u2019s flat<\/p>\n <\/td>\n | Yakutsk Town Administration<\/td>\n | Not enforced until at least July 2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [1].\u00a0\u00a0As in the Government\u2019s observations<\/p>\n | | | | | | |