European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF MAMEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 16264/09 and 6 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

16 February 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Mamedov and others v. Russia,

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

          Helena Jäderblom, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 26 January 2017,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

6.  The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, 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.”

7.  In order to determine the issue of State responsibility for the debts of State or municipal 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 (see Liseytseva and Maslov, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 204-206, 9 October 2014). The present cases are similar to Liseytseva and Maslov (ibid., §§ 208-219) from the standpoint of the debtor enterprises’ functions and the degree of actual control exercised by the authorities over the companies’ activities. The Court finds that, as in the leading judgment, the debtor enterprises in the instant cases did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the authorities, and the State is to be held responsible under the Convention for the judgment debts owed to the applicants by the enterprises.

8.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II).

9.  The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken (see the appended table for details of court orders). The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Liseytseva and Maslov, cited above, § 224, with further references).

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.

11.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  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.”

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Voronkov v. Russia, no. 39678/03, §§ 68-69, 30 July 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

15.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.

16.  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 applications admissible;

 

3.  Holds that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;

 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 February 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Karen Reid                                                                     Helena Jäderblom
       Registrar                                                                              President




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the 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 and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration	Representative name and location	Relevant domestic decision	Start date of non-enforcement period	End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings	Domestic order	Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant (in Euros)	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in Euros)[1]
1.	16264/09 16/02/2009	Telman Dzhannatali MAMEDOV 15/08/1956	Shestakov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Kotlas	Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Judicial Circuit of Kotlas of the Arkhangelsk Region, 18/12/2007	29/12/2007	Pending More than 8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s)	7,121   Salary arrears (RUB 253,583 of initially awarded RUB 342,680 remain unenforced), judgment against MUP "Kotlas", "Passazhirskoe Avtotransportnoe Predpriyatie" (core activity: transportation services, tariffs set by the regional authorities), company liquidated on 03/08/2015, a claim for damages examined as subsidiary liability (21/10/10, 1st inst.) and a new subsidiary liability claim against different authorities (24/12/12, 1st inst.) rejected by the domestic courts.	7,121	2,000
2.	54547/10 04/09/2010	OOO TSK DELO		Commercial Court of Moscow, 14/10/2009	16/11/2009	Pending More than 6 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 19 day(s)	65,644   payment for service provided, FGUP "Upravlenie Specialnogo Stroitelstva", core activity: construction works for military purposes. Company liquidated on 16/02/2016	63,806	2,000
3.	60362/10 01/10/2010	Zoya Ivanovna PETROVA 23/03/1939		Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul, 19/05/2008	06/06/2008	Pending More than 8 year(s) and 29 day(s)	5,629   Non-pecuniary damages, Municipalnoe Unitarnoe Avtotransportnoe Predpriyatie of Barnaul, core activity: transport service Company liquidated on 26/05/2009	5,629	2,000
4.	75556/10 23/11/2010	Pavel Petrovich GRINCHUK 31/01/1983	Shestakov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Kotlas	Justice of the Peace of 2nd Judicial Circuit of Kotlas of the Arkhangelsk Region, 06/03/2008	18/03/2006	Pending More than 10 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 17 day(s)	4,884   Salary arrears, MUP "Kotlas", "Passazhirskoe Avtotransportnoe Predpriyatie", core activity: transportation services, tariffs set by the regional authorities. Company liquidated on 03/08/2015	4,884	2,000
5.	1990/11 10/12/2010	Nikolay Semenovich MELNIKOV 08/05/1953	Shestakov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Kotlas	Justice of the Peace of the 1st Judicial Circuit of Kotlas, the Arkhangelsk Region, 24/03/2008	03/04/2008	Pending More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)	4,349 (Decision partly enforced: 56132 RUB) Salary arrears, MUP "Kotlas", "Passazhirskoe Avtotransportnoe Predpriyatie", core activity: transportation services, tariffs set by the regional authorities. Company liquidated on 03/08/2015	4,315	2,000
6.	12511/11 25/01/2011	Yuriy Petrovich ZHOLOBOV 30/05/1953	Shestakov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Kotlas	Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Judicial Circuit of Kotlas of the Arkhangelsk Region, 31/03/2008	11/04/2008	Pending More than 8 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 24 day(s)	10,520   (Decision partly enforced 88 326 RUB) Salary arrears, MUP "Kotlas", "Passazhirskoe Avtotransportnoe Predpriyatie", core activity: transportation services, tariffs set by the regional authorities. Company liquidated on 03/08/2015	8,140	2,000
7.	7342/13 26/12/2012	KRESTYANSKOYE KHOZYAYSTVO KOLOS[2] 21/08/2009		Commercial Court of the Moscow Region , 04/10/2010   Commercial Court of the Moscow Region, 14/12/2009	05/11/2010           10/10/2012	Pending More than 5 year(s) and 8 month(s)     Pending More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 25 day(s)	94,636   Payment for service, FGUP "Stroitelnoye Upravlenie 4 pri Specstroe Rossii", core activity: military construction. Company liquidated on 05/09/2013	94,636	2,000

 

 




---

[2].  Application no. 7342/13 was communicated as Yaroshev v. Russia




---

[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.