THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 38784\/11
\nAleksandr Gennadyevich MARCHENKO
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on15\u00a0November 2018 as a committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 May 2011,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n The case originated in an application (no.\u00a038784\/11) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Mr AleksandrGennadyevichMarchenko (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 27\u00a0May 2011.<\/p>\n The applicant\u2019s complaints under Articles\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and\u00a013 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of the Protocol No.\u00a01 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against a unitary enterprise (MUP) and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the cases<\/strong><\/p>\n The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n On 3 November 2010 and 25 October 2010 the Svobodnenskiy Town Court of the Amur Region ordered the municipal unitary enterprise (MUP \u201cKommunalnyyeUslugi\u201d (communal services)) to pay the applicant certain amounts in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and allowances. The judgments came into force on 19 November 2010 and 17\u00a0December 2010respectively.<\/p>\n On 19 May 2011 the municipal unitary enterprise was liquidated.<\/p>\n The judgments remain unenforced.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law<\/strong><\/p>\n The relevant provisions and case-law governing unitary companies with the right of economic control are described in the judgments of Liseytseva and Maslovv. Russia (nos. 39483\/05 and 40527\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a054-127, 9\u00a0October 2014), and Samsonov v. Russia (dec.) (no.\u00a02880\/10, 16\u00a0September 2014).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments in his favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. These complaints fall to be examined under Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention and on Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01, which in relevant parts read 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 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 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 The Government submitted that the State could not be held responsible for the debts of the company as the company did not perform any public function. They further argued that the company\u2019s liquidation had not been caused by the acts of its founder, the owner of its assets, or of any other body authorised to issue instructions binding for the company.<\/p>\n The Court observes that the relevant case-law regarding the State\u2019s responsibility for the debts of unitary enterprises with the right of economic control is summarised in the judgment of Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0183\u201192) and the decision of Samsonov(cited above). The Court held 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 had 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.<\/p>\n Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise under domestic law. The Court further notes that the parties did not provide any evidence that the company had exercised any public functions or provided services of vital importance. Nor did they maintain that the State had interfered with the company\u2019s activities, either by issuing compulsory instructions or ordering the transfer of its assets to other companies (see, by contrast, Liseytseva and Maslov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0208\u201119; for a similar case, see Stupin and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no. 43121\/05, 22\u00a0September 2015).<\/p>\n In the light of the above, the Court finds that the company enjoyed sufficient institutional and operational independence from the authorities. Accordingly, the decisions in the applicant\u2019s favour should be regarded as having been issued against a private company (see Samsonov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a076).<\/p>\n The Court further notes that the applicant did not argue that the alleged non-enforcement was due to any defects on behalf of the enforcement authorities.<\/p>\n In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 and\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 6 December 2018.<\/p>\n Liv Tigerstedt\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
\nActing Deputy 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 President<\/p>\n