THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48028/07
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ZHDANOV against Russia
and 15 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appendix,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and other details are tabulated below. They are represented before the Court by Mr I. Telyatyev, a lawyer practising in Arkhangelsk.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. First set of proceedings
4. On 16 July 2004 the applicant in application no. 48028/07 (“the first applicant”) brought proceedings for recovery of unpaid wages against the Federal State Unitary Hydrographical Enterprise (Федеральное государственное унитарное гидрографическое предприятие) (hereafter “the company”).
5. On 22 July 2004 the Justice of Peace of judicial circuit no. 1 of the Solombalskiy District of Arkhangelsk (hereafter “the tribunal”) took an interim decision not to accept the claim for examination until the first applicant complied with procedural requirements. According to the decision, the first applicant had failed to submit the debt calculation and copies of the documents supporting his claim. The applicant was given eight days to remedy the shortcomings.
6. On 29 July 2004 the first applicant submitted the calculation. He also requested the court to seek the above-mentioned documents from the defendant.
7. On 8 October 2004 the applicant’s action was accepted for examination. On the same date the first applicant’s case was merged with twelve other cases.
8. On 13 October 2004 the tribunal requested the company to submit their observations and a number of documents.
9. On 25 October 2004 the first hearing was scheduled for 8 November 2004. On 8 November 2004 it was adjourned until 22 November 2004 due to the parties’ failure to appear.
10. On 22 November 2004 the first applicant requested the tribunal to adjourn the case until a similar case was decided by another tribunal. The motion was granted.
11. On 1 December 2004 the tribunal requested the company to submit documents.
12. It appears that on 14 December 2004 the examination of the case was resumed and a hearing was scheduled for 16 December.
13. On 16 December 2004 the tribunal granted the motion of the defendant’s representative to adjourn the case until another case was decided.
14. On 24 December 2004 the tribunal requested the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of transport to submit documents. On 4 March 2005 and on 11 April 2005, having received no reply, the tribunal reiterated the request.
15. On 12 May 2005 the case was resumed and scheduled for 19 July 2005. The first applicant’s representative received the summons on 13 July 2005.
16. On 19 July 2005 the case was rescheduled for 29 August 2005 due to the parties’ failure to appear. The first applicant’s representative received the summons on 19 July 2005.
17. On 29 August 2005 the case was adjourned due to the claimants’ failure to appear as well as due to the fact that the claimants needed to review the salary arrears calculation submitted by the defendant.
18. Between 29 August and 14 November 2005 the tribunal sent three requests to submit documents to various organisations.
19. On 10 January 2006 the case was joined with forty other cases.
20. On 19 January 2006 the tribunal granted the motion of the first applicant’s representative to adjourn the case until 14 February 2006 to allow the claimants to recalculate the salary arrears.
21. On 14 February 2006 the case was yet again adjourned upon the request of both parties. The claimants requested the tribunal to order the defendant to submit an internal document, and the company requested additional time for yet another recalculation.
22. On 22 March 2006, in the course of the next hearing, at which the claimants and their representatives were not present, the defendant requested the tribunal to order a linguistic expert examination. The request was granted and the case was adjourned. The claimants were invited to submit questions for the expert by 3 April 2006.
23. Having received no submissions from the plaintiffs, the judge formulated the questions himself and on 2 May 2006 referred the case to the expert.
24. On 17 July 2006, upon the receipt of the expert report, the tribunal resumed the case. The next hearing was scheduled for 20 September 2006. The first applicant and his representative were informed thereof on 15 September 2006 and on 8 September 2006 respectively.
25. On 20 September 2006 the case was yet again adjourned until 17 October 2006 due to the parties’ failure to appear.
26. On 17 October 2006 the first applicant failed to appear, but his representative was present at the hearing. The defendant requested the tribunal to invite the Federal Agency of maritime and fluvial transport (hereafter “the Agency”) to participate in the proceedings as a third party. The request was granted, and the case was yet again adjourned to allow the third party to appear.
27. On 17 November 2006 the first applicant’s representative was informed that the case was scheduled for 20 November 2006.
28. On 20 November 2006 the tribunal held the last hearing in the case. Three days later it dismissed the claims.
29. On 13 December 2006 the first applicant’s representative lodged an appeal.
30. On 19 February 2007 the representative complained of the tribunal’s failure to refer the case to the appellate court.
31. By letter of 20 February 2007 the tribunal replied that the appeal had been lodged belatedly and that on 13 February 2007 the tribunal had adopted a decision to restore the time-limit.
32. On 28 February 2007 the case file was transferred to the appellate court. On 5 March 2007 the Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk (hereafter “the court”) accepted the case for examination on appeal and scheduled the first hearing for 29 March 2007. The first applicant received the court summons on 13 March 2007.
33. On 29 March 2007 the case was adjourned to allow the court to study the new documents adduced by the defendant. The case was scheduled for 19 April 2007, and the first applicant was informed thereof on 3 April 2007.
34. On 19 April 2007 a hearing was held in the presence of the representatives of the parties. On the same date the court upheld the judgment and dismissed the appeal.
35. On 23 April 2007 the appeal decision was sent to the parties.
2. Second set of proceedings
(a) Judgment in the applicants’ favour
36. All applicants (except for Ms Skomorokhova (application no. 67749/09)) were the employees of the company. On 23 May 2005 they were paid the salary arrears due to them before 1 December 2003. Subsequently they brought proceedings in court seeking index-linking of the salary arrears and interest on the amounts.
37. Ms Skomorokova’s husband was an employee of the company and took part in the proceedings mentioned in paragraph 36 above. The applicant herself had never been employed by the company. She did not participate in those proceedings.
38. On 13 September 2007 the Justice of Peace of judicial circuit no. 3 of St Petersburg (hereafter “Justice of Peace”) granted their claims in part, awarding them interest in the amount of 1/300 of the applicable refinancing rate of Russia’s Central Bank for the periods from 30 June to 15 December 2003 and from 24 May to 26 July 2005. The court also index-linked the original amounts for the same periods.
39. On 14 January 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg (hereafter “District Court”) overturned the above judgment on appeal in the part dismissing the applicants’ claims and ordered that the interest on belated salary payments be also charged for the period from 15 December 2003 to 23 May 2005. The appeal judgment became final on the same date.
(b) Enforcement of the judgment
40. On 14 August 2008 the Justice of Peace issued the execution writs. On 18 August 2008 the execution writs were received by the Bailiffs Service. On the same date the bailiffs initiated the execution proceedings which were joined to similar proceedings concerning more than sixty cases.
41. According to the Government, between 18 August 2008 and 18 February 2009 the bailiffs adopted six decisions to suspend the enforcement proceedings due to the fact that the debtor had appealed against the judicial decision.
42. On 12 January 2009 the bailiffs requested the Justice of Peace to indicate specific sums to be paid to the applicants. On 16 February 2009 the Justice of Peace informed the bailiffs that they had to address their request to the District Court. The bailiffs did so on 18 February 2009. On 6 April 2009 the District Court replied to them, indicating the specific amounts.
43. On 16 April 2009 the bailiffs ordered the debtor company to execute the judgment of the District Court. On 15 October 2009 the company was fined for having failed to comply with the order.
44. On 19 October 2009 the company transferred a sum corresponding to the entire amount of its debt on the account of the Bailiffs’ Service. On 23 October 2009 that sum was paid to the association representing the applicants’ interests, the North Regional Organisation of the Russian Trade Union of Seafarers (“Северная региональная организация Российского профсоюза моряков”).
3. Available information on the debtor company
45. The company is a unitary enterprise with the right of “economic control” over the assets allocated to it by the Federal Agency of maritime and fluvial transport. According to the company’s articles of association and activities, the main objectives of the company were providing services with a view to ensure the safe navigation “within the interests and international obligations of Russia”, and executing orders of the Federal Agency of maritime and fluvial transport in the area of development and maintenance of systems and means of communication and navigation.
46. Currently the company is not insolvent and is not in liquidation.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
47. The relevant provisions and case-law governing unitary enterprises with the right of economic control are described in the judgments of Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 54-127, 9 October 2014, and of Samsonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 2880/10, 16 September 2014).
48. Under Article 154-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2002 an action must be examined by the Justice of Peace within one month after it is lodged.
49. Under Article 56 § 3 of the Civil Code of Russia subsidiary liability for a legal entity’s obligations may be imposed upon the owner of the legal entity’s property or by other persons who have the right to issue binding instructions to the given legal entity, or may determine its actions in any other way, if the insolvency of a legal entity has been caused by such persons, in the event that the legal entity’s assets prove to be insufficient.
50. On 30 April 2010 the Russian Parliament enacted Federal Law No. 68-FZ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”). The Compensation Act entered into force on 4 May 2010. It provides that in the event of a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time or to enforcement within reasonable time of a domestic judgment establishing a debt to be recovered from State budgets, an individual is entitled to seek compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.
COMPLAINTS
51. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgments of 13 September 2007 and 14 January 2008. The applicants (except for Mr Zhdanov (application 48028/07) also complain about the lack of an effective remedy in that respect under Article 13 of the Convention.
52. Mr Zhdanov (application no. 48028/07) also complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of unreasonable length of the proceedings which ended on 19 April 2007 (see paragraphs 4-34 above).
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
53. Given that the present applications raise similar issues under the Convention, the Court decides join them pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
B. Alleged violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement of the judgements
54. The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour, and, in fifteen cases, they also complained about the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
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.”
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.”
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The Government
55. The Government submitted that the company had not performed any public functions and its activities were purely commercial. The Government also pointed out that the company did not become insolvent and thus the State could not be held liable for its debts under domestic law. The Government submitted that the company was not the property of the State, was not entrusted with functions of public interest, was not controlled by the State, and had sufficient institutional and functional independence. They concluded that the debts of the company in the present cases were not attributable to the State. Accordingly, the judgments in the applicants’ favour should be regarded as issued against a private company. In line with the Court’s case-law, the authorities had provided requisite assistance to the applicants in their efforts to have the court awards enforced. This ultimately led to the execution of the judgment.
(b) The applicants
56. The applicants pointed out that only public authorities had the right to found unitary enterprises. The main purpose of such companies’ activity was not to obtain profit, but to secure the fulfilment of public functions. Such companies had no property rights to the assets allocated to them by their owner and disposed thereof only with the owner’s authorisation. Referring to the case of Aleksandrova v. Russia, no. 28965/02, 6 December 2007, the applicants asserted that the State was liable for the company’s failure to execute the judgment in due time.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) Victim status of the applicant in application no. 67749/09
57. The Court notes that the applicant’s husband was the company’s employee and took part in the proceedings mentioned in paragraph 36 above. However, the applicant herself did not work for the company and did not participate in those proceedings (see paragraph 37 above).
58. The Court reiterates that in order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 44, ECHR 2009).
59. The applicant failed to explain how the proceedings in question had affected her rights under the Convention. The Court does not find any indication thereof in the case file either. Accordingly, the Court considers that the applicant has no standing to introduce the present application and should be struck out in accordance with Article 34 of the Convention.
(b) Other applications
(i) The Court’s case-law
60. The relevant case-law regarding the State’s responsibility for the debts of unitary enterprises with the right of economic control is summarised in the judgment of Liseytseva and Maslov, cited above, §§ 183‑92. The Court held that in order to decide on the operational and institutional independence of a given municipal unitary enterprise having the right of economic control the Court has to assess the nature of the enterprise’s functions and the degree of the State or municipal authorities’ actual involvement in the management of the enterprises’ assets.
61. With regard to the non-enforcement of domestic judgments, the Court has consistently held that in situations where the party liable to pay is a State, the approach of the Court is that the judicial award should be enforced fully and without any unjustified delay (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002‑III). In contrast to the obligation of a High Contracting Party to comply expediently with the judgments against it, within the domain of enforcement of a final and binding judicial decision against a private party a State’s obligations are limited to providing a creditor with the necessary legal assistance and ensuring the effective operation of the procedure (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, § 84, 7 June 2005; Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007; and Kunashko v. Russia, no. 36337/03, § 38, 17 December 2009). In the context of the Russian legal system, the principles cited above are applicable, in the first place, to the bailiffs service, which is required to perform its functions diligently and thoroughly with a view to ensuring effective execution of judgments issued against “private” defendants (Pelipenko v. Russia, no. 69037/10, § 50, 2 October 2012).
(ii) Application to the present cases
(α) Whether the respondent enterprises’ debts are attributable to the State in the present cases
62. With regard to the criteria developped by the Court in the case of Liseytseva and Maslov, the Court notes that the company exercised commercial activities upon the orders of a Federal Agency (see paragraph 45 above). The Court concludes therefore that the company’s functions were of mixed nature as its purely commercial activities were performed with a purpose of public interest.
63. Turning to the authorities’ actual involvement in the company’s business, the Court observes that, unlike in Liseytseva and Maslov, neither the Government nor the applicant alleged that the State had somehow interfered with the enterprise’s activities.
64. In any event, the Court notes that, unlike in Liseytseva and Maslov, the debtor company in the present case was not insolvent or subject to liquidation. The Court observes in this respect that under Russian law the owner of property under the economic control of a unitary enterprise is not liable for the debts of the unitary enterprise unless the insolvency of the enterprise has been caused by the owner’s actions (see paragraph 49 above). As long as the company had sufficient assets on their balance, the State could not be held responsible for the company’s failure to pay their debts.
65. In view of the above the Court concludes that the company enjoyed sufficient institutional and operational independence from the authorities. Accordingly the State’s responsibility for the company’s failure to execute the judgment should be assessed in the light of the principles related to the non-enforcement of the judgments against private parties (see Kunashko, cited above, §§ 38-40, and Samsonov, cited above, §§ 82-85).
(β) Non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour
66. The Court observes that on 14 January 2008 the applicants obtained a judgment against the company by which the latter was to pay them interest of salary arrears. On 14 August 2008 execution writs were issued, and on 18 August 2008 they were received by the Bailiffs’ Service. On 19 October 2009 the debtor company paid the judgment debt in full (see paragraphs 39, 40 and 44 above).
67. The Court notes that overall length of the enforcement proceedings was of one year and two months, which was not excessively long (see by contrast Kunashko, cited above, eight years, and Pelipenko, cited above, § 44, ten years).
68. Furthermore, it cannot be said that during that time the bailiffs remained inactive. On the contrary, they requested clarifications on the judgment’s execution from the courts and imposed a fine on the company for the failure to comply with the final judicial decision (see paragraphs 42 and 43 above), which ultimately resulted in the execution of the judgment. The applicants did not allege, either in domestic proceedings or before the Court, that the assistance which they had received from the Bailiffs’ Service had been inadequate.
69. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Alleged violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention on account of excessive length of judicial proceedings in respect of the first applicant
70. The first applicant also complained that the length of civil proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and also complained that he had not had an effective remedy in that respect. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, which, 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 ... hearing within a reasonable time 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.”
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The applicant
71. The applicant submitted that he had never been notified of the hearings prior to 15 September 2006, which prevented the tribunal from deciding the case before that date. He also pointed to several periods of inactivity by the tribunal, such as between 16 and 22 July 2004 and between 30 July and 8 October 2004. The applicant asserted that the judicial system was not organised effectively, attributing that to the fact that between 8 October 2004 and 5 December 2005 the tribunal had been unable to obtain certain documents. The parties did not appear at several hearings due to the tribunal’s failure to inform them thereof. It took the tribunal two years to decide that a third party needed to be invited to participate in the proceedings. There was no need to conduct a linguistic expert examination in the case since answering the questions which the expert was asked did not require any special qualifications.
(b) The Government
72. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, the applicant had failed to complain to the qualification board or to higher judicial authorities about the excessive length of the proceedings. The applicant also failed to avail himself of the new remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings, introduced by the Compensation Act of 2010 (see paragraph 50 above).
73. The Government further submitted that the length of the proceedings was not unreasonable having regard to the complexity of the case (the courts had to examine simultaneously the claims of 53 plaintiffs), frequent delays attributable to the parties to the proceedings, and absence of unjustified periods of inaction on the side of the domestic courts. With regard to the applicant’s argument about the tribunal’s failure to notify him of the hearings prior to 15 September 2006, the Government submitted that his representatives had been duly informed thereof. As to the alleged tribunal’s inactivity between 30 July and 8 October 2004, the Government explained that other claimants needed that time to comply with procedural requirements, and meanwhile the tribunal requested information and documents from various authorities. The third party was invited to participate in the proceedings when it turned out that a contract was being signed between them and the defendant company. Hence the third party’s depositions were relevant for the assessment of the defendant company’s future financial situation.
2. The Court’s assessment
74. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him before and after the adoption of the pilot judgement Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009).
75. As regards the domestic remedies existing prior to the adoption of the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its previous finding that at the time when the applicant brought their applications to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see Meshcheryakov v. Russia, no. 24564/04, § 36, 3 February 2011 with references therein).
76. As regards the domestic remedy introduced in response to the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its position that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see, mutatis mutandis, Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 144). In line with this principle, the Court decides to proceed with the examination of the present cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Utyuzhnikova v. Russia, no. 25957/03, §§ 48-52, 7 October 2010; compare with Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 26716/09, § 32, 23 September 2010) and, accordingly, dismisses the Government’s objection as regards the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicants.
77. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
78. The Court notes that the overall length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case was of two years and nine months and that the applicant’s action concerned an employment dispute. The Court recalls that employment disputes by their nature call for expeditious decision (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 56, 29 January 2004). However, the Court finds that the case was complex since it involved participation of several defendants and of a third party, and required examination of a significant amount of documentary evidence.
79. As to the conduct of the parties, the Court notes that the case was adjourned on several occasions due to the parties’ failure to appear, requests for additional time to submit documents and calculations, requests for information and documents. Such delays cannot be said to be attributable to the State as they are the consequence of the enjoyment by the parties of their procedural rights. The applicant did not argue that the courts’ decisions to grant motions or to adjourn the case for the parties’ failure to appear were unjustified.
80. The Court further takes into consideration the applicant’s argument that the expert examination commissioned by the judge on the defendant’s initiative was not necessary. The Court reiterates that the domestic courts are best placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case and for interpreting and applying rules of substantive and procedural law (see, amongst many authorities, Pekinel v. Turkey, no. 9939/02, § 53, 18 March 2008). Accordingly, it is not for the Court to assess the relevance of the expert report in the present case.
81. Turning to the applicant’s allegation that the tribunal’s decision to invite a third party to join the proceedings was belated, the Court notes that it was the defendant company which raised the issue of the third party’s participation. The tribunal’s role was limited to deciding the company’s motion. The applicant did not argue that the tribunal’s decision to invite the third party had been unjustified.
82. The Court is mindful that the Government did not comment on some delays in the examination of the applicant’s case. However, in view of all the circumstances of the case, the Court is unable to find that those delays have substantially contributed to the length of the proceedings.
83. Making an overall assessment of the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the total length of the proceedings, the Court considers that the latter did not go beyond what may be considered reasonable in this particular case.
84. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
D. Other complaints
85. The Court observes that the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 about the assessment of evidence and the outcome of the proceedings before the domestic courts. The applicants in applications nos. 20852/09, 24812/09, 26826/09, 28291/09, 29804/09, 34397/09, 41205/09, 57438/09 also complained about excessive length of the proceedings which ended on 14 January 2008. The applicant in application no. 48028/07 further complained of lack of his notification of hearings prior to 15 September 2006.
86. Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and to the extent that it has power to examine the allegations, the Court does not find any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by those provisions. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 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 21 July 2016.
Fatoş AracıBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application No.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
48028/07
30/09/2007
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ZHDANOV
26/04/1976
Arkhangelsk
52153/07
30/09/2007
Yuriy Fedorovich LATUKHIN
10/11/1934
Arkhangelsk
54006/07
30/09/2007
Aleksey Vasilyevich GORODILOV
25/04/1946
Arkhangelsk
54748/07
25/10/2007
Aleksey Anatolyevich YUMZHAKOV
14/01/1970
Arkhangelsk
20852/09
25/03/2009
Viktor Ivanovich LAPEKHO
10/11/1934
Arkhangelsk
24812/09
08/04/2009
Yuliya Alekseyevna BREUNIS
15/10/1969
Arkangelsk
26826/09
25/03/2009
Vasiliy Borisovich UGLOV
20/06/1969
Arkhangelsk
27079/09
25/03/2009
Oksana Vyacheslavovna BEREZENSKAYA
26/03/1977
Arkhangelsk
28291/09
01/04/2009
Nikolay Nikolayevich YEPIFANOV
28/10/1962
Arkhangelsk
29804/09
03/04/2009
Vladimir Sergeyevich KALEMINTSEV
26/02/1957
Arkhangelsk
34325/09
02/04/2009
Konstantin Aleksandrovich KAPUSTIN
Arkhangelsk
34397/09
03/04/2009
Andrey Yevgenyevich YUROV
09/01/1977
Arkhangelsk
41205/09
13/04/2009
Nadezhda Alekseyevna GRIBANOVA
04/01/1977
Arkhangelsk
57438/09
08/10/2009
Svetlana Faikovna KERIMOVA
08/03/1965
Arkhangelsk
67749/09
20/11/2009
Antonina Viktorovna SKOMOROKHOVA
22/12/1949
Arkhangelsk
3220/10
30/12/2009
Valeriy Petrovich SHUMILKIN
01/11/1942
Arkhangelsk
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy