THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20851/05
Buranbay Abdullovich AYSULOV against Russia
and 14 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 October 2021 as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Darian Pavli,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants alleged that the national authorities had failed to provide them with the necessary assistance in enforcement of the final court decisions against private parties.
The circumstances of the case4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5. The applicants had final decisions in their favour against private parties rendered by national courts, on various dates, to be enforced. They submitted the writs of execution for these decisions to the bailiffs’ service and enforcement proceedings were initiated, which brought no or insufficient results. The applicants lodged civil actions against the bailiffs’ service, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage by the lengthy non‑enforcement of the judgments. The particulars of the relevant domestic proceedings are presented in the appended table.
Relevant domestic law6. The provisions of domestic law concerning execution of judgments were previously set out in the case Kunashko v. Russia (no. 36337/03, §§ 27-30, 17 December 2009) and, concerning compensation for damage caused by public authorities and their officials, in the case Smagilov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 24324/05, §§ 17-31, 13 November 2014).
COMPLAINTS
7. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to assist them in the enforcement of the final judgments against private parties. Certain applicants also alleged that the above failure to provide them requisite legal assistance resulted in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Some applicants also lodged an accessory complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly.
9. The applicants referring to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to assist them in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour. The Government contested that argument.
10. The Court notes that the applicable general principles are well‑established in the case-law. Notably, when final judgments are issued against “private” defendants, the State’s positive obligation consists of providing a legal arsenal allowing individuals to obtain, from their evading debtors, payment of sums awarded by those judgments. However this positive obligation is not that of result, but one of means (see, among many other authorities, Dachar v. France (dec.), no. 42338/98, 6 June 2000; Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, § 84, 7 June 2005; and Kunashko, cited above, §§ 38‑39, 17 December 2009).
11. The Court, having carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table and having regard to its case-law, concludes that, in the light of aforementioned and the material in its possession, the State authorities have provided requisite assistance to the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour, and impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to them. In view of the above, the applications are manifestly ill-founded, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 November 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Olga Chernishova María Elósegui
Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments against private parties)
Application
no.
Applicant name
Year of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
Domestic judgment in applicant’s favour (court, date, award)
Start date of enforcement/submission of the writ to bailiff
Article 1069 proceedings (final decision – court, date, award/reason to refuse)
Reasons for inadmissibility
1.
20851/05
Buranbay Abdullovich AYSULOV
1951
Krasnodar
Russian
Self-representation
Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar
20/08/2002
RUB 251,900
Issued and sent to the bailiffs:
02/09/2002
Initiated:
10/10/2002
Unlawful omission recognized:
Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod
17/03/2005 (not sending copies of documents)
Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod
28/09/2007
22/11/2007
03/10/2008
Compensation proceeding:
Declined
Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod
19/04/2006
No causal link
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
2.
8521/07
Valentina Mikhaylovna GANIMAN
1946
Troitsk, Chelyabinsk Region
Russian
Troitsk Town Court
28/02/2000
RUB 33,215.50
Indexation of the award
Troitsk Town Court
22/09/2005
RUB 72,775.87
Troitsk Town Court
24/08/2007
RUB 83,189.97
Troitsk Town Court
20/04/2009
RUB 101,599.91
Initiated:
07/03/2000
Unlawful omission recognized:
Troitsk Town Court
05/12/2005
Compensation claim:
Dismissed
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
14/09/2006
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
3.
53213/08
Vladimir Fedorovich KUDRYAVTSEV
1950
Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan
Russian
Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV
Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa
15/12/1997
RUB 221,055
Initiated:
12/11/1998
Unlawful omission recognised and compensation proceedings:
Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan
25/03/2008
RUB 50,000 of non-pecuniary damages
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
4.
40289/10
Aleksandr Vasilyevich YERMOLAYEV
1949
Rtischevo, Saratov Region
Russian
Self-Representation
Commercial Court of the Saratov Region
01/12/1999
RUB 250,000
Initiated:
11/12/2000
Unlawful omission recognised:
Commercial Court of Saratov Region
12/10/2005
Commercial Court of Saratov Region
22/11/2006
Compensation proceedings:
Federal Commercial Court of the Volga Circuit
26/07/2010
Declined
The judgment is against a private party, and thus, falls out of scope of the Compensation Act 2010
Saratov Regional Court
04/05/2011
Declined
No causal link
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
Article 13 – no need to examine separately.
5.
20536/11
Marina Aleksandrovna MAKSIMOVA
14/04/1969
Volgograd
Russian
Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd
16/12/1999
Alimony equal to 25% of the income + additional maintenance equal to 25% of the income
Issued:
16/12/1999
Unlawful omission recognized and compensation proceeding:
Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd
20/07/2010
RUB 5,000
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, the applicant maintains the possibility to further pursue the enforcement proceedings. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
6.
35043/11
Tatyana Yuryevna ANDREYEVA
1960
Irina Yuryevna
ANDREYEVA
1992
Olga Yuryevna
ANDREYEVA
1994
Nizhniy Novgorod
Russian
Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod
07/12/1995
Alimony equal to 1/3 of the income in respect of children + additional maintenance equal to RUR 60,500/month between 31/01/1995 and 21/02/1996 in respect of the first applicant
Unknown, the case file was destroyed due to the expiry of the statutory time-limit for its storage
Duplicates issued:
02/04/2002
Initiated:
07/07/2004
Unlawful omission recognised:
Priokskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod
06/07/2006
25/04/2008
03/11/2010
Compensation proceedings:
Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod
30/09/2010
RUB 26,164.20
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
17/11/2011
Dismissed
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, the latter was fully enforced.
7.
55474/12
Farida Radikovna BIKAYEVA
1963
Perm
Russian
Industrialniy District Court of Perm
30/03/2009
RUB 2,706,018
30/07/2010
RUB 1,283,120
05/08/2011
RUB 1,014,391.43
Interim measure
05/03/2009
Main enforcement proceedings
27/05/2009
22/11/2010
09/11/2011
Unlawful omission recognised:
Perm District Court of the Perm Region
03/02/2011
07/06/2011
17/10/2011
Compensation proceedings:
Industrialnyy District Court of Perm
11/04/2012
RUB 100,200
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
Article 13 – no need to examine separately.
8.
59958/13
Maksim Grigoryevich GORLOV
1939
Moscow
Russian
Self-Representation
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow
22/03/2006
RUB 244,907
Initiated:
17/04/2006
Unlawful omission recognised:
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow
10/03/2009
20/04/2009
29/06/2009
Compensation proceedings:
Supreme Court
19/06/2013
RUB 5,000
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
9.
18862/14
Ivan Iosifovich
TYAGLO
1943
Yessentuki, Stavropol Region
Russian
Viktor Vladimirovich POLYAKOV
Yessentuki Town Court
23/10/2008
RUB 1,813,100
Indexation of the award:
Yessentuki Town Court
18/06/2009
RUB 136,060
Yessentuki Town Court
22/03/2010
RUB 135,419.76
Yessentuki Town Court
15/02/2011
RUB 132,766.74
Yessentuki Town Court
26/03/2012
RUB 159,075
Yessentuki Town Court
24/04/2013
RUB 156,897.22
Initiated
02/12/2008
Unlawful omission recognised:
Stavropol Regional Court
19/01/2010
Compensation proceedings:
Supreme Court
07/04/2014
Declined
No causal link
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
10.
55310/14
Yuriy Iosifovich MIKHAYLOVSKIY
1974
Moscow
Russian
Self-Representation
Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow
05/11/2008
RUB 1,495,103.30
Indexation of the award:
Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow
09/06/2011
RUB 343,020.70
Initiated:
19/02/2009
Unlawful omission recognised:
Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow
24/12/2009
Moscow City Court
08/11/2009
Compensation proceedings:
Supreme Court
02/04/2014
RUB 3,000
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
11.
18827/17
Elena Mikhaylovna KUZNETSOVA
1966
Tver
Russian
Artem Yuryevich BRANNTSKIY
Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok
28/02/2007
RUB 749,408
Initiated:
01/06/2007
Unlawful omission recognised:
Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok
28/04/2012
Compensation proceedings:
Primorskiy Regional Court
08/02/2016
RUB 50,000
non-pecuniary damage
Leninskiy Distrivt Court of Vladivostok
RUB 107,167,88
legal costs
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
Article 13 – no need to examine separately.
12.
26352/17
Valeriy Mikhaylovich TOKUNOV
1954
Anapa
Russian
Susanna Ilyinichna ARUTYUNYAN
Interim measure:
Anapa Town Court
14/01/2011
RUB 3,025,919
Main proceedings:
Krasnodar Regional Court
05/11/2013
RUB 2,413,012.40
Initiated:
07/03/2013
Compensation awarded:
Supreme Court
21/09/2016
RUB 1,300,000 of pecuniary damage and RUB 100,000 of non-pecuniary damage
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
13.
42552/17
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BARSUKOV
06/06/1978
Kursk
Russian
Andrey Nikolayevich
GOLOVACHEV
Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd
28/01/2003
RUB 169,530
Indexation of the award:
Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd
10/07/2008
RUB 80,018,18
Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd
11/02/2011
RUB 59,165,33
Novoanninskiy District Court of Volgograd
30/04/2014
RUB 26,288,12
Initiated:
03/04/2003
Supreme Court
15/02/2017
Declined
No direct causal link
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.
Article 13 – no need to examine separately.
14.
19709/18
Yelena Nikolayevna MUSKATINA
1978
Moscow
Russian
Self-Representation
Khoroshevskiy Intermunicipal People’s Court of the North-Western Administrative Circuit of Moscow
10/04/1996
Monthly alimony payments equal to 1/4 of the income in respect of a child (1995 y.o.b.)
Penalty for failure to pay alimony payments
Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow
22/04/2015
RUB 8,643,371
(substitution of the applicant in the domestic proceedings, the sum was awarded to the applicant’s son who by that time was an adult)
Initiated:
27/08/2013
Unlawful omission recognised
Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow
18/08/2016
Compensation proceedings:
Supreme Court
09/02/2018
Declined
No causal link
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour, enforcement is still possible. Anyway, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them.
15.
29409/18
Sergey Petrovich FILIPPOV
1958
Mikhaylovka, Volgograd Region
Russian
Anton Valeryevich GAVRILOV
Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region
13/12/2010
RUB 1,230,957
Interim measure:
16/12/2010
Main proceedings:
07/04/2011
Unlawful omission recognised:
Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region
25/12/2015
Compensation proceedings:
Supreme Court
30/01/2018
Declined
No causal link
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, impossibility of full enforcement cannot be attributed to them
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, impossibility of further enforcement cannot be attributed to the actions of the authorities. The State cannot be held responsible for the lack of funds on the side of the debtor.