European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF RUBIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 8265/04, 10342/04, 20018/07, 21043/07, 10313/08, 13953/08, 36611/08, 50948/08, 59052/08, 31477/09, 56499/09, 4225/10, 42111/10, 43017/10 and 61212/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

4 October 2016

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Rubin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Helen Keller, President,
          Pere Pastor Vilanova,
          Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in fifteen applications (nos. 8265/04, 10342/04, 20018/07, 21043/07, 10313/08, 13953/08, 36611/08, 50948/08, 59052/08, 31477/09, 56499/09, 4225/10, 42111/10, 43017/10 and 61212/10) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eighteen Russian nationals, Mr Viktor Semenovich Rubin, Mr Vladimir Ilyich Rogozhnikov, Mr Ambartsum Torgomovich Papikyan, Ms Nadezhda Aleksandrovna Kostyuchenko, Mr Nikolay Vasilyevich Anishchenko, Ms Tatyana Vasilyevna Gordeyeva, Mr Mikhail Vasilyevich Zhuravlev, Mr Petr Afanasyevich Anufriyev, Mr Igor Anatolyevich Korneyev, Mr Vitaliy Aleksandrovich Roshchupkin, Mr Aleksey Ivanovich Zinin, Ms Valentina Alekseyevna Burayeva, Ms Natalya Nikolayevna Churilova, Ms Lyubov Anatolyevna Kuleshova, Mr Grigoriy Ivanovich Kotok, Ms Olga Viktorovna Gorbunova, Ms Radimkhan Dautovna Arapkhanova, and Mr Vladimir Alekseyevich Kanev (“the applicants”), on various dates listed below.

2.  Mr Rogozhnikov was represented by Mr S.I. Belyayev and Mrs Gorbunova was represented by S.M. Loginov, lawyers practising in Yekaterinburg and in Ulyanovsk respectively. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  Between 24 November 2006 and 16 February 2015 the applications were communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES

4.  The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals. Their names, years of birth and places of residence are tabulated below.

5.  The applicants sued different municipal companies, referred to in the Appendix as the “debtor companies”, in various unrelated sets of the court proceedings.

A.  Available information on the debtor companies

6.  The companies were incorporated as municipal unitary enterprises set up by decisions of local administrations and provided services tabulated below in the respective municipal districts in several regions of Russia. The companies had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to them by the administrations in order to carry out their statutory activities.

7.  On the dates tabulated below by decisions of the local authorities some of the assets allocated to the companies were transferred back to the administration.

8.  At a later point insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of the debtor companies. As a result, the companies were subsequently liquidated. The dates on which the insolvency started and ended are tabulated below.

B.  Decisions in the applicants’ favour against the debtor company

9.  On the dates tabulated below domestic courts by separate judgments made pecuniary awards in the applicants’ favour, to be paid by the debtor companies. Particulars of each judgment are summarised in the appended table.

10.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the awards became enforceable.

11.  The final judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour have remained unenforced due to companies’ insolvency and subsequent liquidation. Several applicants’ subsequent court actions against authorities, including subsidiary liability claim, legal succession proceedings or claims for damages against the respective local administrations, as well as repetitive complaints to the bailiffs’ service or the prosecutor’s office in connection with pending criminal proceedings brought in 2006-07 with regard to the company’s insolvency (applications nos. 20018/07, 10313/08, 36611/08, 56499/09, 42111/10, 43017/10, and 61212/10) proved futile.

C.  Death of the applicant in application no. 10313/08

12.  On 20 November 2009 the applicant in application no. 10313/08 died. On 1 November 2010, his widow, Anishchenko Raisa Yakovlevna, expressed her willing to participate in the proceedings before the Court in her late husband’s stand.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

13.  The domestic provisions relevant to the cases on the legal status of State and municipal unitary enterprises with the right of economic control are summarised in Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia (nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 54-127, 9 October 2014), and Samsonov v. Russia ((dec.) no. 2880/10, 18 September 2014).

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

14.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  LOCUS STANDI

15.  The Court takes note of the applicant’s death and of the wish of Ms Anishchenko, his widow, to pursue the proceedings he initiated.

16.  The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005). Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). The Government did not contend that Ms Anishchenko had no standing to pursue the case. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicant’s widow has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application.

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

17.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... 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.”

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.”

A.  Submissions by the parties

1.  The Government

18.  The Government argued that the unitary companies in question were commercial organisations independent from the authorities. They accordingly submitted that the debts of municipal unitary enterprises were not attributable to the State.

19.  The Government further claimed that Mr Rubin, Mr Anishchenko, Mr Zinin, and Ms Churilova (applications nos. 8265/04, 10313/08, 50948/08 and 31477/09) had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies. In particular, they had failed to complain to court about the liquidators’ acts.

2.  The applicants

20.  The applicants maintained that the debtor company had been, in fact, a State-run enterprise controlled by the administration and that the State was responsible for the company’s debts.

B.  Admissibility

1.  Compatibility ratione personae

21.  The Court has held that the existing legal framework in Russia does not provide unitary enterprises with a degree of institutional and operational independence that would absolve the State from responsibility under the Convention for the debts of such companies (see Liseytseva and Maslov, cited above, §§ 193-204). In order to determine the issue of State responsibility for the debts of unitary enterprises the Court must examine whether and how the extensive powers of control provided for in domestic law were actually exercised by the authorities in the present case.

22.  The Court notes that the debtor companies were set up for providing services of housing maintenance, heating, gas and water supply (except for application no. 20018/07). In Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, § 208) the Court held that such companies’ institutional links with the public administration were particularly strengthened by the special nature of their activities (see also Yershova v. Russia, no. 1387/04, § 58, 8 April 2010).

23.  Furthermore, the actual degree of the State control over the companies in applications nos. 20018/07, 10313/08, 13953/08, 36611/08, and 59052/08 was amply demonstrated by the fact that local authorities disposed of the companies’ property as they saw fit. According to the information submitted by the applicants and not disputed by the Government, on the dates tabulated below major parts of the companies’ assets were taken back by the respective local authorities to be later allocated to new companies. The Court examined a similar situation in Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, §§ 211 and 217), and found that the company’s assets and activities had been, as a matter of fact, controlled by the State to a decisive extent and that accordingly the State was liable for the company’s debts.

24.  In the light of the above the Court finds that the companies did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the municipal authorities and dismisses the Government’s ratione personae objection. Accordingly, the municipality, and hence the State, is to be held responsible under the Convention for the debts owed by the respondent company to the applicants in accordance with the final judgments in their favour.

2.  Exhaustion of domestic remedies

25.  In Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, § 165) the Court dismissed a similar objection raised by the Government. There is no reason to reach a different conclusion in respect of any of the seven applicants.

3.  Conclusion

26.  The Court further notes that the applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

C.  Merits

27.  The Court notes that the judgments in the applicants’ favour have not been fully enforced up to date.

28.  The Court has established above that the State is responsible under the Convention for the debts owed by the respondent company (see paragraph 24 above). By failing to comply with the judgments and court orders the national authorities prevented the applicants from receiving the money they could reasonably have expected to receive. The Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Liseytseva and Maslov, cited above, §§ 208-24).

29.  As regards to the effective remedies the Court has already held in respect to similar situations in Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, §§ 165-72) that there were no effective remedies in the applicants’ attempt to obtain either the execution of the awards made against the municipal unitary enterprises or the compensation of the alleged violations.

30.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the final and binding judgments in the applicants’ favour and the lack of effective remedies.

IV.  OTHER COMPLAINTS

31.  The Court observes that several applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the assessment of evidence and the outcome of the proceedings before the domestic courts (applications nos. 13953/08 and 59052/08) and about the length of the proceedings (application no. 56499/09). Three applicants also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that the domestic decisions had been discriminatory (applications nos. 10342/04, 36611/08 and 50948/08). Four applicants (application no. 36611/08) further complained under Article 4 of the Convention that they had been submitted to forced labour due to the absence of the remuneration and under Article 11 of the Convention that the company’s failure to execute the final judgments in their favour had been linked by their membership in a trade-union.

32.  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.

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

33.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A.  Damage

1.  Pecuniary damage

34.  The applicants claimed the amounts tabulated below in respect of pecuniary damage.

35.  The Government objected that it could not be obliged to pay for the losses that they were not responsible for.

36.  In view of its findings above the Court finds it appropriate to award the applicants in full the sums that had been initially adjudged to them by domestic courts (except Mr Rubin, Ms Kostyuchenko, and Mr Anishchenko). In the cases of Mr Rubin, Ms Kostyuchenko, and Mr Anishchenko the Court notes that the judgments have been partly enforced. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to award 678 euros (EUR) to Mr Rubin, EUR 871 to Ms Kostyuchenko, and EUR 646 to Ms Anishchenko.

2.  Non-pecuniary damage

37.  The applicants (except Ms Gordeyeva) claimed the amounts tabulated below in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Ms Gordeyeva made no such claim.

38.  The Government considered the amount claimed to be excessive.

39.  The Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award EUR 2,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to each of the applicants (except Ms Gordeyeva) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (Voronkov v. Russia, no. 39678/03, §§ 68-69, 30 July 2015).

B.  Costs and expenses

40.  Six applicants (Mr Rubin, Mr Papikyan, Ms Kostyuchenko, Ms Churilova, Mr Kanev, Mr Zinin and Mr Rogozhnikov) also submitted claims for costs and expenses.

41.  The Government argued that the claims were ill-founded.

42.  According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum.

43.  In the cases of Ms Kostyuchenko, who claimed EUR 50, Ms Churilova who claimed EUR 240, and Mr Kanev, who claimed EUR 230, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum claimed in full, together with any tax that may be chargeable to him on that amount.

44.  In the cases of Mr Zinin and Mr Rogozhnikov, the Court notes that the documents submitted by applicants only justify the costs in the sums of EUR 1,429 and EUR 9 respectively. The Court considers it reasonable to award the latter sums, together with any tax that may be chargeable to him on that amount.

45.  In the case of Mr Rubin the Court notes that the applicant did not produce any documents to support his claim. Accordingly, it should be dismissed.

46.  In the case of Mr Papikyan the Court notes that the only document submitted by the applicant is a copy of his electronic ticket to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, where, according to the applicant, he had needed to consult some documents relevant for his application before the Court. The applicant failed to either produce copies of those documents or to otherwise substantiate his submissions. In these circumstances the Court is unable to conclude whether the expenses claimed were necessarily incurred and reasonable, and, accordingly, dismisses the claim.

C.  Default interest

47.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

 

(i)  in respect of pecuniary damage:

EUR 678 (six hundred and seventy-eight euros) to Mr Rubin,

EUR 2,446 (two thousand four hundred and forty-six euros) to Mr Rogozhnikov,

EUR 102,876 (one hundred and two thousand eight hundred and seventy-six euros) to Mr Papikyan,

EUR 871 (eight hundred and seventy-one euros) to Ms Kostyuchenko,

EUR 646 (six hundred and forty-six euros) to Ms Anishchenko,

EUR 15,839 (fifteen thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine euros) to Ms Gordeyeva,

EUR 267 (two hundred and sixty-seven euros) to Mr Zhuravlev,

EUR 334 (three hundred and thirty-four euros) to Mr Anufriyev,

EUR 335 (three hundred and thirty-five euros) to Mr Korneyev,

EUR 440 (four hundred and forty euros) to Mr Roshchupkin,

EUR 2,420 (two thousand four hundred and twenty euros) to Mr Zinin,

EUR 630 (six hundred and thirty euros) to Ms Burayeva,

EUR 675 (six hundred and seventy-five euros) to Ms Churilova,

EUR 3,478 (three thousand four hundred and seventy-eight euros) to Ms Kuleshova,

EUR 7,501 (seven thousand five hundred and one euros) to Mr Kotok,

EUR 3,261 (three thousand two hundred and sixty-one euros) to Ms Gorbunova,

EUR 10,766 (ten thousand seven hundred and sixty-six euros) to Ms Arapkhanova,

EUR 24,701 (twenty-four thousand seven hundred and one euros) to Mr Kanev;

 

 

(ii)  EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each of the applicants (except Ms Gordeyeva);

 

(iii)  in respect of costs and expenses:

EUR 9 (nine euros), to Mr Rogozhnikov,

EUR 50 (fifty euros) to Ms Kostyuchenko,

EUR 1,429 (one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine euros) to Mr Zinin,

EUR 240 (two hundred and forty euros) to Ms Churilova,

EUR 230 (two hundred and thirty euros) to Mr Kanev,

plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

 

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                         Helen Keller
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President




APPENDIX

 

No.	Application no., lodged on	Applicant’s name, year of birth, place of residence	Debtor company, its main statutory functions	Judgement by	Date of the judgement, its entry into force, amount of the award	Date of enforcement (if enforced)	Available information on the authorities’ decisions to withdraw assets from the companies’ control	Insolvency proceedings started and ended on	Claims for pecuniary damage / non-pecuniary damage / costs and expenses
1.	8265/04 12/02/2004	Rubin Viktor Semenovich (1937, Khorol, the Primorskiy Region)	MUP Zhilishchno-ekspluatatsionnogo khozyaystva (maintenance of municipal housing)	Khorolskiy District Court of the Primorskiy Region	08/10/2001 22/10/2001 EUR 956	Partly enforced (EUR 278 paid to the applicant)		18/04/2002-22/06/2005	Unpaid salary (EUR 678)/ RUB 100,000/ RUB 1,000
2.	10342/04 26/12/2003	Rogozhnikov Vladimir Ilyich (1958, Talitsa, the Sverdlovskiy Region	Municipal Housing Maintenance and Utilites Enterprise of the Talitskiy District (maintenance of municipal housing)	Talitskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region	29/08/2000 12/09/2000 EUR 2,446	Not enforced		17/07/2002-03/09/2004	RUB 191,557,79/ EUR 5,000/ RUB 50,000
3.	20018/07 21/03/2007	Papikyan Ambartsum Torgomovich (1946, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy)	GUP Kamchatskiy pishchekombinat (production of food and agricultural goods, commerce)	Commercial Court of the Far East Region	30/08/2004 30/08/2004 EUR 102,876	Not enforced	On 09/11/2001 the regional governor adopted decision no. 826-P to withdraw assets from the company’s economic control and to transfer them to another, newly founded enterprise.	10/07/2003-08/04/2005	EUR 102,876 (initial award) and EUR 810,943 (loss of profit)/ EUR 200,000/ RUB 80,000
4.	21043/07 21/04/2007	Kostyuchenko Nadezhda Aleksandrovna (1955, Nakhodka, Primorskiy Region)	MUP “Zhilkomhoz” (maintenance of municipal housing)	Justice of the Peace of the 47th Court Circuit of the city of Nakhodka of the Primorskiy Region	25/01/2006 25/04/2006 EUR 961	Partly enforced (EUR 90 paid to the applicant)		21/09/2005-09/04/2008	Unpaid debt RUB 29,238,97/ RUB 300,000/ RUB 2,156,38
5.	10313/08 19/01/2008	Anishchenko Nikolay Vasilyevich (1932, Voronezh)	MZhKH “Petrovskoe” of Paninskiy district (housing maintenance)	Paninskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region	11/03/2001 11/03/2001 EUR 601	Not enforced	By decision of 02/08/2001 the company’s assets were transferred to the administration and later allocated to a new municipal unitary enterprise.	23/04/2006-22/12/2006	RUB 47,542,41 (corresponding to index-linked judgment debt)/ EUR 10,000
			MUP “Raykommunkhoz” (heating supply, construction and maintenance of communal objects)	Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Paninskiy District of the Voronezh region	01/07/2005 01/07/2005 EUR 542	Partly enforced 09/2008-10/2009 (EUR 497  paid to the applicant)		27/04/2006-13/05/2010
6.	13953/08 04/02/2008	Gordeyeva Tatyana Vasilyevna (1952, Tver)	MUP ZhKH “Gorzhilkomkhoz” (housing maintenance, transportation, heating supply)	Gadzhiyevo Town Court of the Murmansk Region	18/10/2006 27/12/2006 EUR 9,659	Not enforced	By decision of 02/02/2004 the company’s assets were transferred to the administration and later allocated to a new municipal unitary enterprise.	20/02/2007-26/02/2009	RUB 548,309 (in respect of pecuniary damage)
				Justice of the Peace of the Court Circuit of Skalistyy of the Murmansk region	08/05/2007 23/03/2007 EUR 6,180
7.	36611/08 22/03/2008	Zhuravlev Mikhail Vasilyevich (1949, Ostrogozhsk, Voronezh Region)	MUP “Vodoprovodno-kanalizatsionnoye khozyaystvo” (water supply)	Ostrogozhskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region	25/07/2002 25/07/2002 EUR 267	Not enforced	By decision of 26/10/2001 the company’s assets were transferred to the administration and later allocated to a new municipal unitary enterprise.	26/09/2002-31/03/2003	RUB 49,550 RUB 104,150 RUB 104,320 RUB 137,200 (corresponding to index-linked judgment debt)/ EUR 50,000 for each applicant
		Anufriyev Petr Afanasyevich (1951, Ostrogozhsk, Voronezh Region)     Korneyev Igor Anatolyevich (1968, Ostrogozhsk, Voronezh Region)   Roshchupkin Vitaliy Aleksandrovich (1974, Ostrogozhsk, Voronezh Region)	MUP “Vodoprovodno-kanalizatsionnoye khozyaystvo” (water supply)	Ostrogozhskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region	07/08/2002 07/08/2002 EUR 334 EUR 335 EUR 440 respectively	Not enforced
8.	50948/08 10/09/2008	Zinin Aleksey Ivanovich (1936, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Kamchatka Region)	MUP “Siluet” (maintenance of municipal housing)	Justice of the Peace of the 26th Court Circuit of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy of the Kamchatka Region	06/11/2007 06/11/2007 EUR 2,420	Not enforced		21/05/2007-11/08/2009	RUB 1,261,430/ RUB 240,000/ RUB 240,000
9.	59052/08 08/10/2008	Burayeva Valentina Alekseyevna (1953, Dmitriyev, Kursk Region)	MP “Kommunalnye Teplovye Seti” (heating supply)	Dmitriyevskiy District Court of the Kursk Region	29/02/2008 29/02/2008 EUR 630	Not enforced	By decision of 04/07/2006 the company’s assets were transferred to the administration and later allocated to a new company.	23/04/2008-12/05/2010	RUB 22,836,90/ EUR 15,000
10.	31477/09 07/05/2009	Churilova Natalya Nikolayevna (1972, Yefremov, Tula Region)	MUP “Agrokomsluzhba” (maintenance of municipal housing)	Justice of the Peace of the 18th Court Circuit of the Yefremovskiy District of the Tula Region	30/11/2006 09/07/2007 (as modified on appeal) EUR 239	Not enforced		09/11/2005-22/12/2008	RUB 30,000/ RUB 10,000,000/ RUB 10,164,90
					26/12/2006 18/07/2007 EUR 436
11.	56499/09 28/09/2009	Kuleshova Lyubov Anatolyevna (1965, Yefremov, Tula Region)	MUP “Zhilishchno-Remontnoye Ekspluatatsionnoye Predpriyatiye” (maintenance of municipal housing)	Yefremovskiy Town Court of the Tula Region	22/12/2008 09/04/2009 (as modified on appeal) EUR 3,478	Not enforced		18/07/2007-18/12/2008	RUB 695,372/ EUR 50,000
12.	4225/10 23/12/2009	Kotok Grigoriy Ivanovich (1946, Khandyga, Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic)	MUP “Ulusnoye Proizvodstvennoye Obyedineniye ZhKKh” (maintenance of municipal housing)	Commercial Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic	20/08/2002 04/09/2002 EUR 7,501	Not enforced		01/12/2003-11/10/2010	RUB 233,760/ EUR 3,000
13.	42111/10 30/06/2010	Gorbunova Olga Viktorovna (1977, Ulyanovsk)	MUP “Elektroteploset” (production and distribution of heating and electricity; according to the information provided by the applicant and undisputed by the Government, the tariffs for the company’s services were set by the administration)	Zasviyazhskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk	23/07/2009 08/08/2009 EUR 3,261	Not enforced		19/02/2009-18/09/2009	EUR 4,997 (corresponding to index-linked judgment debt)/ EUR 2,000
14.	43017/10 02/06/2010	Arapkhanova Radimkhan Dautovna (1960, Ordzhonikidzevskaya, Republic of Ingushetiya)	GUP Ingushgas (gas supply)	Nazran District Court of the Ingushetiya Republic	05/02/2007 12/04/2007 (as modified on appeal) EUR 10,766	Not enforced	By decision of 9/11/2006 no. 692-P the regional government decided to liquidate the company	Company liquidated in February 2007	RUB 373,600 / EUR 500,000
15.	61212/10 20/09/2010	Kanev Vladimir Alekseyevich (1940, Pechora)	Municipal Unitary Enterprise for Housing and Communal Services (MUP "Pechorazhilkomhoz"or “MUP PZHKH”) of Pechora, the Komi Republic   Sphere of operation: in particular, housing and communal services in the area, heating supply	1)  Justice of Peace of the Privokzalnyy Court Circuit of Pechora of the Komi Republic   2)  Justice of Peace of the Rechnoy Court Circuit of Pechora of the Komi Republic   3)  Pechora Town Court of the Komi Republic   4)  Justice of Peace of the Sosnovoborskiy Court Circuit of Pechora   5)  Pechora Town Court of the Komi Republic	1)  08/06/2007 18/06/2007 EUR 9,572     2)   29/08/2008 08/09/2008 EUR 140     3)   25/09/2008 25/09/2008 EUR 9,430   4)   30/06/2008 25/09/2008 EUR 1,497     5)  03/12/2008 13/02/2009 EUR 4,062	Not enforced		30/08/2007-09/06/2009	RUB 1,237,959,13/ RUB 500,000/ RUB 14,182,14