THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55886/07
Yuriy Ivanovich POLIVAYEV against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
On various dates in 2016 the applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) (see, for example, Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, 9 October 2014, and Samsonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 2880/10, 9 October 2014).
Turning to the amounts proposed, the Court notes, in particular, that in the present cases, where the domestic judgments can no longer be enforced due to the liquidation of the debtor enterprises, the Government undertook to pay the applicants the equivalent of the respective judgment debts (see the appendix below). The Court further notes that the amounts proposed in respect of non-pecuniary damage are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Liseytseva and Maslov, cited above, § 233, and Voronkov v. Russia, no. 39678/03, §§ 67-70, 30 July 2015).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 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
Representative’s name and location
Domestic court
Date of judgment
Final on
Domestic award (in Russian roubles)
Debtor company
Liquidation date
Enforcement date
Enforcement delay as acknowledged in the UD
Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant
(in Russian roubles)[1]
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[2]
55886/07
16/11/2007
Yuriy Ivanovich Polivayev
16/03/1955
Representative:
Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich
Voronezh
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of
Voronezh, 09/04/2002, 22/10/2002
To repair the apartment at a cost of RUB 21,373, and to bring the microclimate in the apartment in conformity with the construction rules
MUP
“ZhKKh” of the Zheleznodorozhnyy
District of Voronezh (housing and communal services provider); on 11/06/2004 merged to
MUP MUREP-34, on 07/05/2007 replaced by MUP MUREP-84,
liquidated on 03/12/2012.
Remains partly unenforced
12 years, 9 months, 18 days
21,373
2,000
53003/08
27/09/2008
Yelena Anatolyevna Samotkan
01/09/1956
Justice of the Peace of the 41st Court Circuit
of Yakutsk,
23/10/2009,
23/11/2009
2,864,485
GUP
“Orkhideya” of Yakutsk (commercial (shopping mall)),
liquidated on 23/11/2009.
13/08/2012
2 years, 8 months, 21 days
0
1,500
57969/11
29/08/2011
Minzilya Fayzullovna Khaybullina
02/04/1955
Ruslan Radikovich Khaybullin
07/08/1983
1) Kumertau Town Court of Bashkortostan,
16/08/2002,
19/11/2002
2) Kumertau Town Court of Bashkortostan,
13/05/2004,
23/05/2004
1) 172,266 to
Ms Khaybullina,
107,454 to
Mr Khaybullin
and monthly
payments to both applicants;
2) monthly
payments to both applicants.
MUP
Teploelectroset’ of Isyangulovo,
Bashkortostan (electricity supply); it appears that on 30/05/2012 it was liquidated.
1) Enforced,
date n/a
2) Remains partly unenforced
107,278 (jointly to both applicants)
2,000 (jointly to both applicants)
19239/12
28/02/2012
Vladimir Anatolyevich Burmistrov
30/06/1958
Vologda Town Court,
19/01/2011,
18/03/2011
6,000
MUP “Zhilishny Tsentr”
(housing centre), liquidated on
09/06/2011
Remains unenforced
5 years, 20 days
6,000
1,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable.
[2]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy