THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3137/03
Klavdiya Vasilyevna KHODYKINA against Russia
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 October 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, 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
The applicants are Russian nationals. The application numbers, dates, the applicants’ names and their personal details are set out in the annexed table.
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, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On various dates the applicants brought civil proceedings against private parties. The national courts held for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments (the debtors) to perform certain acts and/or to pay various sums to the applicants. The judgments became final and enforceable.
The Bailiffs’ Service initiated and pursued enforcement proceedings against the debtors with varying degrees of success. Discontented with the alleged lack of progress in the enforcement of the judgments, certain applicants initiated judicial proceedings. The relevant information is presented in the annexed table.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about failure of the State to provide them adequate and efficient legal assistance in the enforcement of judgments against private parties.
Ms Khodykina also complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and lack of the respective effective remedy.
Similarly, Mr Serov and Ms Serova, and Mr Popov complained about lack of an effective remedy with regard to their complaints communicated under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The applicants further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that failure of the State to assist them in enforcement of the judgments resulted in violation of their property rights.
Some of the applicants lodged accessory complaints under Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications listed in the appended table should be joined, given their common legal background.
The respondent Government in their observations argued that the present applications did not comply with the admissibility criteria under Article 35 of the Convention and thus invited the Court to declare them inadmissible.
Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific admissibility arguments.
The Court has carefully examined the applications listed in the annexed table and concluded that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the applications listed in the annexed table are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 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 25 October 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
date of introduction
Applicant’s name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
Domestic judgment
in applicant’s favour
(court, date, award)
Article 1069 proceedings
(final decision – court, date,
award/reason to refuse)
Reason for inadmissibility
3137/03
02/01/2003
Klavdiya Vasilyevna
KHODYKINA
13/06/1954
Izobilnyy, Stavropol Region
self‑
representation
Izobilnenskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region on
- 22 February 2001 / interim injunction and seizure of the debtor’s property
- 31 January 2002 / RUB 33,131.24 and seizure of the debtor’s property
- 3 October 2003 / RUB 16,247.27 in indexation
- 9 April 2004 / RUB 4,667.51 in indexation
- 7 June 2005 / RUB 10,881.20 in indexation
- 11 August 2009 / RUB 50,268.19 in indexation
Federal Commercial Court of the North Caucasian Region / 29 September 2009 / claimed the debt of RUB 64,927.22 plus indexation / awarded the debt of RUB 64,927.22 without indexation
Manifestly ill‑founded
30369/04
18/06/2004
Ravil Minigayazovich
SABIROV
14/01/1959
Mendeleevsk,
Republic of Tatarstan
Naberezhnochelninskiy Town Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on
- 19 July 2001 / eviction of the applicant’s former mother-in-law
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic / 18 December 2003 / refused:
- no inaction on the bailiffs’ part;
- no evidence of non-pecuniary damage;
- lengthy enforcement resulted from the procedure of actual enforcement of the court-ordered eviction
Manifestly ill‑founded
7537/05
08/01/2005
Eduard Nikolayevich
GALUTSKIY
14/02/1970
Petropavlovka,
Belgorod Region
Oktyabrskiy District (Town) Court of the Belgorod Region on
- 18 November 1998 / RUB 35,000
- 18 February 2003 / RUB 5,976.32 in interest and RUB 57,470 in indexation
Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
16584/06
19/03/2006
Yevgeniy Georgiyevich
SEROV
17/02/1964
Saratov
Tatyana Aleksandrovna SEROVA
14/04/1939
Saratov
Ms. Serova/NNEF private:
Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov on
- 17 July 2002 / in kind (development of project documentation, works) and RUB 10,875.25
Justice of the Peace of the 1st Court Circuit of the Oktyabrskiy District of Saratov on
- 3 April 2006 / obligation to bring the project documentation in compliance with the requirements
Mr. Serov/NNEF v. State:
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov on
- 31 March 2005 / in kind (production of a written statement) and RUB 1,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage
- 8 April 2005 / RUB 100
Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
Manifestly ill‑founded
17862/06
07/04/2006
Larisa Mikhaylovna
TARAN
19/04/1940
Yelizovo,
Kamchatka Region
(i) Elizovskiy District Court of the Kamchatka Region on
- 13 March 2002 / in kind (demolition of an unauthorized construction) / as amended by the Presidium of the Kamchatka Regional Court on 30 December 2002
(ii) Elizovskiy Federal District Court of the Kamchatka Region on
- 2 July 2001 / in kind (transfer of the structures from the land plot’s border to the land plot pursuant to SNiP 30-02-97)
- 29 July 2002 / clarification of the judgment of 2 July 2001 (the poultry and livestock structures be moved for 4 m., the hay structures - for 1 m. pursuant to the SNiP)
Manifestly ill‑founded
36529/06
07/08/2006
Valentin Viktorovich
POSPELOV
30/05/1941
St Petersburg
Magadan Town Court of the Magadan Region on
- 30 September 2002 / RUB 107,487.81
Magadan Regional Court / 11 July 2006 / awarded RUB 15,000 in compensation of non-pecuniary damage:
- no evidence that the applicant’s incapacity resulted from the non‑enforcement
Manifestly ill‑founded
39888/07
31/08/2007
Aleksandr Sergeyevich
POPOV
21/05/1954
Arkhangelsk
Igor
Yuryevich
Telyatyev
(i) Commission on Labour Disputes of Arkhangelsk / 12 May 2003 / RUB 14,683.72
(ii) Taganskiy District Court of Moscow / 14 June 2006 / RUB 5,000 in non‑pecuniary damage for non‑enforcement of the judgment of 12 May 2003, and RUB 100 in court fee / upheld on 7 September 2006 by the Moscow City Court
Manifestly ill‑founded
Unsubstantiated
No significant disadvantage
9020/09
18/12/2008
Vladimir Nikolayevich
LOMAKIN
05/06/1951
Moscow
Chertanovo District Court of Moscow / 31 October 2006 / RUB 52,709.93 in wages for the period of forced absence, cancellation of the dismissal order, reinstatement at work as of 15 February 2006, issue of a duplicate employment record without the record of dismissal
Moscow City Court / 24 July 2008 /acknowledged unlawfulness of the bailiff’s resolutions on discontinuation of the enforcement procedure, refused recovery of average wages for the period of forced absence and of non-pecuniary damage:
- the State Treasury is not a proper defendant (the debtor is the one)
Manifestly ill‑founded
11589/09
26/01/2009
Anatoliy Fedorovich
IGNATENKO
22/04/1952
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
self‑
representation
Justice of the Peace of the 27th Court Circuit of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Region / 3 November 2004 / RUB 16,847.16 (RUB 12,310 in wages, RUB 3,537.16 in compensation for unused vacation and RUB 1,000 in non-pecuniary damage compensation) and the copies of the orders on the applicant’s employment and dismissal
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court / 8 June 2007 / RUB 5,000 in non-pecuniary damage compensation (for non-provision of the copies of the employment and dismissal orders)
Sakhalin Regional Court / 21 October 2008 / RUB 20,100 in non-pecuniary damage
No significant disadvantage
18550/09
01/03/2009
Yuriy Pavlovich
GULIDOV
03/02/1951
Omsk
Andrey Yevgenyevich
Tverskoy
Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Omsk on:
- 22 January 2004 / RUB 66.652,71 and the debtor was ordered to accept the applicant’s resignation and modify the employment records accordingly;
- 22 July 2005 / RUB 4,835 and the debtor was ordered to transfer the data concerning the applicant’s insurance payments in 2001-2003 to the RF Pension Fund
Omsk Regional Court / 2 May 2007 and 3 September 2008 / claimed recovery of the debt, interest, penalty and court fees / refused:
- no causal link between the bailiffs’ inaction and the debtor’s failure to perform;
- non-recovery of the debt caused by the debtor’s lack of funds (bankruptcy)
Manifestly ill‑founded
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy