THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57876/13
Galina Fedorovna IGNATENKO against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Andreas Zünd, 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. M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov.
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 case
4. 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 law
6. 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. The first applicant 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 30 September 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Olga Chernishova Georges Ravarani
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(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
57876/13
Galina Fedorovna IGNATENKO
1933
Khabarovsk
Russian
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich ZHIGALKIN
Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk
22/09/2010
RUB 305,046,54
Commercial Court of Khabarovsk Region
16/11/2010
RUB 282,633,82
First proceeding
Submitted and initiated: 22/11/2010
Second proceeding
Submitted: 26/01/2011
Initiated: 28/01/2011
Unlawful omission recognized:
Industrailniy District Court of Khabarovsk
26/05/2011
13/09/2011
10/05/2012
28/02/2013
13/03/2013
06/06/2013
04/08/2016
Compensation proceeding:
Declined
Supreme Court
21/05/2013
Khabarovsk Regional Court
21/06/2013
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.
Article 13 – no need to examine separately.
65409/13
Natalya Igorevna KONOPLEVA
1963
Samara
Russian
Denis Yuryevich GUDKOV
Samara Regional Court
18/05/2009
RUB 74,100
Sovetskiy District Court of Samara
30/07/2010
RUB 4,060,61
20/10/2011
RUB 5,873,11
19/12/2011
RUB 14,510,19
Initiated:
22/06/2009
18/08/2010
14/11/2011
24/01/2012
Unlawful omission recognized:
Sovetskiy District Court of Samara
06/02/2012
Compensation proceeding:
Satisfied in part
RUB 3,000 awarded
Supreme Court
07/05/2013
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.
2953/15
Yevgeniy Ivanovich OLEYNIKOV
1962
Elista, Republic of Kalmykia
Russian
Nikolay Viktorovich OREL
Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia
18/12/2008
RUB 1,324,400
Elista Town Court
15/03/2010 (default)
13/07/2010
RUB 822,857,09
Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia
09/11/2011
Amount of the pledged apartment
Submitted: 07/07/2009
Initiated: 08/07/2009
Second set initiated:
14/05/2012
Unlawful omission recognized:
Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykia
15/08/2013
Compensation proceedings:
Supreme Court
29/09/2014
RUB 15,000
Article 6 – manifestly ill‑founded, the State authorities provided requisite assistance to the applicant in the enforcement of the judgments in his favour, one of them was enforced. The other one was not enforced due to the applicant’s actions.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – manifestly ill-founded, one of judgments was enforced, while two others were not enforced due to the applicant’s actions.
51093/15
Anna Viktorovna
LYAPKO
1957
Kalinigrad/Minsk
Russian
Aleksandr Viktorovich
KOSS
Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad
29/10/2009
RUB 336,803,59
Sent by the national court: 19/02/2010
Unlawful omission recognized:
Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad
23/12/2013
Compensation proceedings:
Supreme Court
10/07/2015
RUB 30,000
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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy