THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION
\nApplication no. 23211\/04
\nYuriy Valentinovich SHIKUNOV
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23\u00a0January 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Helen Keller, President,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nAlena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand Fato\u015fArac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 May 2004,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr YuriyValentinovichShikunov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Krasnoarmeysk.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant sued Federal State Unitary Enterprise, FGUP NII Geodeziya (\u0424\u0413\u0423\u041f \u041d\u0418\u0418 \u00ab\u0413\u0435\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0437\u0438\u044f\u00bb) to obtain housing. On 8\u00a0October 2002 the Pushkinskiy Town Court of Moscow Region (\u201cthe Town Court\u201d) ordered the enterprise to provide the applicant with a flat. The judgment entered into force on 4\u00a0December 2002.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0In accordance with the Government Decree dated 30\u00a0December 2005 No.\u00a02363-p the enterprise was reorganised into a treasury enterprise (\u00ab\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0435\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0438\u0435\u00bb) FKP NII Geodeziya (\u0424\u041a\u041f \u041d\u0418\u0418 \u00ab\u0413\u0435\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0437\u0438\u044f\u00bb).<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 10\u00a0February 2006 the same court changed the mode of execution of the judgment of 8\u00a0October 2002 and ordered the enterprise to pay the applicant 1,305,480 Russian roubles (RUB).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 28\u00a0July 2008 the above decision was enforced.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 November 2008 the Town Court index-linked the above\u2011mentioned amount. The court awarded the applicant RUB\u00a01,915,139.16. That amount was paid to the applicant on 23\u00a0December 2009.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On various dates in 2007-2010 the applicant was awarded and paid interest for delay in payment of the debts for various periods.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevantdomesticlaw<\/strong><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention, the applicant complained about delays in enforcement of the court awards in his favour.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of the delayed enforcement of the decisions given in his favour. He relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 to the Convention, which 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 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 A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued, inter alia, that the complaints are inadmissibleratione personae, as the debtor was a private company, and that the decisions in the applicant\u2019s favour had been enforced without an undue delay. In respect of the decision of 18\u00a0November 2008, the Government noted that the state provided the necessary assistance with the view to its enforcement.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained his complaints, arguing that the total length of proceedings in his case, including the period of non-enforcement of the final decisions, amounted to more than eight years.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s case-law<\/em><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The 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). The Court held that in order to decide on the operational and institutional independence of a given municipal unitary enterprise having the right of economic control the Court has to assess the nature of the enterprise\u2019s functions and the degree of the State or municipal authorities\u2019 actual involvement in the management of the enterprises\u2019 assets.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0With regard to the non-enforcement of domestic judgments, the Court has consistently held that in situations where the party liable to pay is a State, the approach of the Court is that the judicial award should be enforced fully and without any unjustified delay (see Burdov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a059498\/00, \u00a7 35, ECHR 2002\u2011III). In contrast to the obligation of a High Contracting Party to comply expediently with the judgments against it, within the domain of enforcement of a final and binding judicial decision against a private party a State\u2019s obligations are limited to providing a creditor with the necessary legal assistance and ensuring the effective operation of the procedure (see Fuklev v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a071186\/01, \u00a7 84, 7\u00a0June 2005; Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no.\u00a025867\/02, 31\u00a0May 2007; and Kunashko v. Russia, no. 36337\/03, \u00a7 38, 17 December 2009). In the context of the Russian legal system, the principles cited above are applicable, in the first place, to the bailiffs service, which is required to perform its functions diligently and thoroughly with a view to ensuring effective execution of judgments issued against \u201cprivate\u201d defendants (Pelipenko v. Russia, no.\u00a069037\/10, \u00a7 50, 2 October 2012).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, for an applicant to be able to claim to be the \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, not only must he have the status of victim at the time the application is introduced, but such status must continue to exist at all stages of the proceedings. It reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a \u201cvictim\u201d unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011III, p.\u00a0846, \u00a7\u00a036).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has previously found that the applicants were no longer victims of violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention in non-enforcement cases where, inter alia, the applicants had been awarded and promptly paid the damages for inflation losses for the period of delay in enforcement of a judgment in their favour (see Derkach v. Russia (dec.), no. 3352\/05, 3\u00a0May 2007, and Nemakina v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no. 14217\/04, 10\u00a0July 2007).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Application to the present case<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0The period before the reorganisation of the debtor company<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that until the end of 2005 the debtor was FGUP NII Geodeziya, a Federal State Unitary Enterprise incorporated under the laws of Russia. Further, thecompanywasreorganisedintoFKPNIIGeodeziya (see paragraph 5 above). The Court will examine the complaint in respect of each type of legal entity.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as FGUP NII Geodeziya is concerned, the Court notes that the case is similar to the case of Samsonov (cited above) as the parties have not submitted any information concerning the question whether FGUP NII Geodeziya performed any public functions or whether the State had somehow interfered with the company\u2019 activities. The Court further notes that the parties\u2019 submissions on the question of state responsibility concern only FKP NII Geodeziya.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court, therefore, is not convinced that FGUP NII Geodeziya did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the authorities. Accordingly, the State\u2019s responsibility for the company\u2019s failure to execute the judgment should be assessed in the light of the principles related to the non-enforcement of the judgments against private parties (see Kunashko, cited above, \u00a7 38-40, and Samsonov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 82-85).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0As regards possible responsibility of the State for the enforcement authorities\u2019 acts, the applicant does not maintain that the bailiffs had been inactive or that their service had been inadequate between 29\u00a0January 2003, the date when the enforcement proceedings commenced, and 30\u00a0December 2005, the time when the debtor company was reorganised (see Samsonov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a082-85).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the complaint in the part relating to the period from the judgment\u2019s entry into force and until the reorganisation of FGUP NII Geodeziya is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with the Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The period after the reorganisation of the debtor company<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0In accordance with the Government Decree dated 30\u00a0December 2005 the debtor company was reorganised from FGUP NII Geodeziya into FKP NII Geodeziya (see paragraph 5 above).<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that FKP NII Geodeziya had sufficient institutional and functional independence, and, thus, its debts were not attributable to the State. The applicant argued in reply that the company was partly funded by the State, which could be held liable for the debts of FKP NII Geodeziya if the company\u2019s assets were not enough.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0However, in the present case, the Court does not need to decide whether the State was responsible for the alleged non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour and against FKP NII Geodeziya as the complaint in this part is in any event inadmissible on the following grounds.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that on 10\u00a0February 2006 the Town Court changed the mode of enforcement of the judgment of 8\u00a0October 2002, and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant a particular amount of money. On 28 June 2006 the decision came into force, and on 28\u00a0July 2008 the amount was paid to the applicant. Thus, the decision was enforced within approximately two years and one month.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further observes that on 18 November 2008 the Town Court adjusted the above-mentioned amount to inflation losses. The Town Court acknowledged that there had been a delay in enforcement of the judgment, which prevented the applicant from purchasing an apartment, and granted in full the amount claimed by the applicant. That decision was enforced within approximately one year (see paragraph 8 above). In addition, the domestic court awarded the applicant interest for delays in payments (see paragraph 9 above).<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0In the view of the foregoing and the Court\u2019s case-law (see paragraphs 17 and 18 above), the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged and then afforded redress for the alleged breach of the Convention.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that, in so far as the debts of FKP NII Geodeziya are concerned, the applicant can no longer claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and that the complaint in this part is to be declared inadmissible, pursuant to Articles 34 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 15 February 2018.<\/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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Helen Keller
\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