FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 9649/06
by Valerian Ashotovich ADAMYAN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 September 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Valerian Ashotovich Adamyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Yekaterinovka, a village in the Saratov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant leads a group of workers who build roads in the Saratov Region. In the early 1990s they organised themselves as Private Enterprise “Saturn” (ИЧП «Сатурн»). The applicant allegedly was the sole owner of Saturn.
In 1995 and 1997 Saturn won three civil actions against its customer – Yekaterinovskoye State Road Construction Enterprise “Dorotdel” (Екатериновское государственное дорожное ремонтно-строительное предприятие «Доротдел»).
On 16 November 1995 the Commercial Court of the Saratov Region awarded Saturn 10,389,958 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and costs. This judgment became binding on 16 December 1995 and was enforced on 14 May 1996.
On 16 November 1995 the Commercial Court of the Saratov Region awarded Saturn RUB 21,680,976 in damages and costs. This judgment became binding on 16 December 1995 but has not been enforced.
On 14 April 1997 the Commercial Court of the Saratov Region awarded Saturn RUB 11,141,866 in damages and costs. This judgment became binding on 14 May 1997 but has not been enforced.
In 1997 Saturn was declared bankrupt and liquidated. In 2005 Dorotdel was subjected to insolvency proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments. The Court will consider this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every 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.
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.”
The Government argued that the application was inadmissible for three reasons.
First, it was incompatible with the Convention ratione personae. The applicant had not been a victim of the alleged violation, because the judgments had been not in his favour but in favour of Saturn. The applicant had not participated in the proceedings in question. Besides, he had not shown that he had been the sole shareholder of Saturn, or that he had inherited its assets.
Second, the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, because he had not requested the bailiff’s service to enforce the judgments.
Third, the application was manifestly ill-founded. The first judgment had been enforced reasonably quickly. The second and third judgments had not been enforced because Saturn had not submitted these claims in the insolvency proceedings against Dorotdel.
The applicant maintained his application.
The Court considers that the application is inadmissible as follows. The case concerns a debt owed by an insolvent State company to a liquidated private company. At the same time, the case was introduced by an individual, Mr Adamyan, who claims to be the sole shareholder and successor of the private company. Hence, the question arises whether Mr Adamyan may claim to be a victim of the delayed collection of the debt.
The Court reiterates that the word “victim” in Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the omission at issue. Disregarding a company’s legal personality is justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clear that the company cannot apply to the Court through its statutory organs or liquidators (see Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330‑A). An exception to this rule is made for companies with a sole shareholder, because in such companies there is no risk that shareholders will disagree about the nature of the breach of the company’s rights and means of recourse. It follows that Mr Adamyan could in principle claim to be a victim of the non-enforcement of the claims owned by Saturn.
Nevertheless, the case file does not contain any documentary proof that Mr Adamyan was the owner of Saturn. Nor is there any proof that he has inherited Saturn’s assets after its liquidation.
In these circumstances, the Court has no basis to consider Mr Adamyan a victim of the alleged violation. It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy