THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MATVEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 54430/08 and 3 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 December 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Matveyeva and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 November 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants sued different State and municipal unitary companies (the debtor companies) in several unrelated sets of court proceedings.
A. Judgments in the applicants’ favour
5. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts by separate judgments made pecuniary awards in favour of the applicants to be paid by the debtor companies. In application no. 34145/11 the courts also ordered the debtor company to take certain action in favour of the applicant, as specified in the appended table.
B. Available information on the debtor companies
6. The companies were incorporated as State or municipal unitary enterprises. They provided services specified in the appended table.
7. On various dates insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of some of the debtor companies. The companies were subsequently liquidated. The dates on which the insolvency proceedings started and ended are tabulated below.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
8. The domestic provisions relevant to the cases on the legal status of State and municipal unitary enterprises with the right of economic control are summarised in Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia (nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 54-127, 9 October 2014), and Samsonov v. Russia ((dec.) no. 2880/10, 18 September 2014).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
9. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
10. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. In applications nos. 54430/08, 69362/10, and 67231/11 they also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, 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 13
“Everyone 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.”
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.”
A. Admissibility
11. The Government raised several objections as to admissibility of the applications. In all cases, except application no. 34145/11, they argued that the debtor companies were commercial organisations independent from the authorities. Accordingly, they submitted that the debts of these companies were not attributable to the State. In most of these cases the Government also claimed that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, in particular, to claim non-pecuniary damage or lodge an action against the liquidator or a claim for subsidiary responsibility under Article 56 § 3 of the Civil Code. In application no. 34145/11, the Government further argued that the applicant did not suffer any significant disadvantage as a result of delayed enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
1. Compatibility ratione personae
12. In order to determine the issue of State responsibility for the debts of State or municipal unitary enterprises the Court must examine whether and how the extensive powers of control provided for in domestic law were actually exercised by the authorities in the present cases (see Liseytseva and Maslov, cited above, §§ 204-06). The present cases are similar to Liseytseva and Maslov (ibid., §§ 208-19) from the standpoint of the debtor enterprises’ functions and the degree of actual control exercised by the authorities over the companies’ activities. The Court finds that, as in the leading judgment, the debtor enterprises in the instant case did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the authorities, and the State is to be held responsible under the Convention for the judgment debts owed to the applicants by the enterprises.
13. In the light of the above the Court dismisses the Government’s ratione personae objection.
2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
14. In Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, §§ 163, 165 and 175) the Court dismissed similar objections raised by the Government. There is no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.
3. No significant disadvantage
15. As regards the “no significant disadvantage” objection in respect of application no. 34145/11, the Government have not explained why they consider that the applicant has suffered no “significant disadvantage” and have made no submissions on two “safeguard clauses” contained in Article 35 § 3 (b).
16. The applicant argued that it was important for him to have the note of his employment with the enterprise made in the employment record, as ordered by the judgment of 5 June 1998, as it directly affected the calculation of the length of his employment, the date of his retirement, as well as his pension.
17. The Court accepts the applicant’s argument. In the view of the foregoing, the Court does not find it appropriate to dismiss the present application with reference to Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 34, 10 July 2012).
4. Conclusion
18. The Court further notes that the applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
19. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “trial” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
20. In the leading case of Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.
21. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
22. The Court further finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
23. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of all applications, and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of applications nos. 54430/08, 69362/10, and 67231/11 on account of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the final and binding judgments in the applicants’ favour and the lack of effective remedies.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
24. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If 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.”
25. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Voronkov v. Russia, no. 39678/03, §§ 68-69, 30 July 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
26. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the domestic judgments which have not been enforced.
27. The 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of all applications, and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of applications nos. 54430/08, 69362/10, and 67231/11, on account of the non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of the final and binding judgments in the applicants’ favour and the lack of effective remedies;
4. Holds that the respondent State shall enforce, within three months, the domestic judgments which have not been enforced;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, 2,000 euros (two 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;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 December 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order (in euros) and information on the debtor company
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
54430/08
06/10/2008
Nadezhda Pavlovna Matveyeva
18/09/1950
Frolovo Town Court of the Volgograd Region,
18/08/2006
28/08/2006
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 24 day(s)
23,784
Salary and allowances unpaid as a result of unlawful dismissal, non-pecuniary damage, legal expenses; judgment against MUP "Teplovyye seti" (“Heating Networks”, core activity: heating supply), insolvency proceedings opened on 29/11/2005, the company was liquidated on 14/03/2008.
2,000
69362/10
30/10/2010
Nikolay Afanasyevich Tarasov
13/12/1955
Shebekinskiy District Court of the Belgorod Region, 17/11/2009
17/11/2009
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 4 day(s)
1,303
6,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for health damage caused in an occupational accident and RUB 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Debtor Company: GUP “Shebekinskiy Leskhoz” (Shebekino Forestry) where the applicant worked as a forester; in particular, he managed State forests, ensured enforcement of the Federal Forest Code, including application of administrative fines, etc. On 19/11/2007 the insolvency proceedings started in respect of the GUP; on 30/11/2009 the Commercial Court decided that the company be liquidated.
2,000
34145/11
26/04/2011
Yuriy Dmitriyevich Maltsev
28/07/1952
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo, 05/06/1998
16/06/1998
12/01/2011
12 year(s) and
6 month(s) and
28 day(s)
To pay salary arrears, compensation of non-pecuniary damage, and to make a note of the applicant’s employment with the enterprise (GP Rostek-Ivanovo reorganised into FGUP Rostek) into the employment record. The company, set up by the Federal Customs Service, provided assistance in ensuring customs formalities, including assistance in filing customs declarations in respect of goods and means of transportation, prepared expert reports, ensured compliance of documents with customs regulations.
2,000
67231/11
16/10/2011
Anna Petrovna Yezhova
02/02/1940
Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi, 19/12/2006
16/01/2007
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s)
1,783
RUB 61,639.3 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and lawyers’ fees, to recalculate charges for 2000-2006. The debtor enterprise (SMUP Upravleniye ZhKKh - Sluzhba Zakazchika) provided housing and communal services in the area and managed housing fund, garages, parking lots. On 09/01/2007 insolvency proceedings started in respect of the company, on 23/06/2011 it was liquidated. During the enforcement proceedings RUB 5,000 was paid to the applicant.
2,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy