Communicated on 26 October 2018
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 19709/18 and 29409/18
Yelena Nikolayevna MUSKATINA against Russia and
Sergey Petrovich FILIPPOV against Russia
lodged on 06 April 2018 and 09 June 2018 respectively
1. The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. The application numbers, dates, the applicants’ names and their personal details are set out in the table below.
The circumstances of the cases
2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. On various dates the applicants brought proceedings against private parties and obtained final court decisions in their favour. The decisions, by which private persons were ordered to pay the applicants certain sums, became final and enforceable.
4. The Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings against the debtors. Discontented with the lack of progress in the enforcement proceedings, the applicants applied to have the bailiffs’ actions or inaction recognised as unlawful. The domestic courts ruled in the applicants’ favour.
5. The applicants initiated civil proceedings under Article 1069 of the Civil Code against the respective State authorities, claiming monetary relief for the State’s failure to assist them in enforcing the judgments against the private parties. The applicants were denied monetary relief.
COMPLAINTS
6. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a failure by the State to provide them adequate and efficient legal assistance in the enforcement of judgments against private parties.
7. Mr Filippov also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that a failure by the State to assist him in the enforcement of the judgment resulted in a violation of his property rights.
QUESTIONS to the parties
1. Have the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour been enforced? If so, what is the date of the full enforcement of each judgement?
2. Did the State authorities duly assist the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments against private parties, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, §§ 64-65, 19 October 2006; Kunashko v. Russia, no. 36337/03, §§ 38-39, 17 December 2009; and Smagilov v. Russia (dec.), no. 24324/05, § 37, 13 November 2014)?
3. Did the applicants exhaust the available domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints concerning the State’s assistance in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour? If so, were they provided appropriate redress?
4. In application no. 29409/18 did the actions or inaction of the State authorities in the enforcement proceedings against private parties preclude further enforcement of the judgments and thus result in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention rights of Mr Filippov (see Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no. 74694/01, 1 April 2004)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
Domestic judgment in applicant’s favour
Article 1069 proceedings
(final domestic decisions)
19709/18
06/04/2018
Yelena Nikolayevna MUSKATINA
13/08/1978
Moscow
Sergey Andreevich MUSKATIN
Khoroshevskiy Inter-Municipal People’s Court of the Moscow North‑West Administrative Circuit on
10 April 1996
Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 351 of “Airport” District of Moscow on
13 February 2015
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on
9 February 2018
29409/18
09/06/2018
Sergey Petrovich FILIPPOV
20/12/1958
Mikhaylovka,
Volgograd Region
Mikhailovskiy District of the Volgograd Region on
13 December 2010
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on
30 January 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy