European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF KABARDOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 11421/13 and 22 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

7 November 2017

 

 

 

 

 

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

 




 

In the case of Kabardokov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2017,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in 23 applications (nos. 11421/13, 15459/13, 15625/13, 15651/13, 18295/13, 19142/13, 19156/13, 19161/13, 19398/13, 19408/13, 19549/13, 19687/13, 19697/13, 19722/13, 22925/13, 22935/13, 22953/13, 23006/13, 23109/13, 23135/13, 23145/13, 26466/13 and 58066/13) 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 one hundred sixty-three Russian nationals. The applicants’ details appear in the Appendix.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3.  On 27 August and 28 August 2014 the applications were communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  Between 1986 and 1987 the applicants took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis.

5.  Considering these benefits insufficient, the applicants together with other 482 people, sued the Russian Ministry of Finance for additional compensation corresponding to non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation.

6.  On different dates in January and April 2011 the Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria (“the Town Court”) allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant, including the applicants, compensation ranging between 1,100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 1,800,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

7.  No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory ten-day time-limit. The judgments became final. Some judgments in respect of several applicants remained unenforced (see “Enforcement status” in the Appendix).

8.  On different dates in 2012 and 2013 the domestic courts granted the defendant authority’s request to extend the time-limit for appeal essentially on the ground that the defendant authority had not been served with the impugned judgments. Subsequently the regional Supreme Court quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law. The applicants were ordered to repay the sums received under the judgments.

9.  The applicants lodged a supervisory review application. There is no indication that they requested the enforcement proceedings to be suspended pending the examination of their supervisory review application.

10.  Between June and August 2013 the Presidium of the regional Supreme Court partially quashed the appeal judgments as regards the applicants’ obligation to reimburse the sums paid.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

11.  The relevant domestic law and practice governing the restoration of the time-limits for appeal is summed up in the Court’s judgment in the case of Magomedov and Others v. Russia (nos. 33636/09 and 9 others, §§ 35-43, 28 March 2017).

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

12.  In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court, the Court decides to consider the applications in a single judgment, given their similar factual and legal background (see Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 14290/03 and 9 others, § 15, 14 January 2010).

II.  STRIKING PARTS OF THE APPLICATIONS OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES

13.  The Court notes that in their submissions of various dates in 2015 some of the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that the applicants either did not intend to pursue their applications before the Court, or that they failed to maintain contact with the representatives concerning the proceedings before the Court.

14.  Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in its relevant part, reads:

“1.  The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a)  the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or ...

...

(c)  ... it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application ...”

15.  On different dates indicated in the appendix (see ”Strike out warnings” in the Appendix) the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their comments and just satisfaction claims had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

16.  No response has been received from the applicants, who have not contacted the Court ever since.

17.  The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the applications.

18.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications in respect of the applicants indicated in the appendix (see “Strike out” in the Appendix) out of the list.

III.  LOCUS STANDI AS REGARDS THE APPLICATIONS Nos. 15651/13, 19156/13, 19408/13, 19687/13, 19722/13 AND 23006/13

19.  The Court notes that Ms M. Arkhipova, Ms O. Lopatina, Ms M. Kazbekova, Ms Z. Nastuyeva, Ms L. Neyevina, Ms L. Finogenova, Ms R. Shiklyasheva, and Ms M. Yermolova expressed a wish to continue proceedings in respect of their deceased relatives.

A.  The parties’ submissions

20.  With reference to the case of Belskiy v. Russia ((dec.), no. 23593/03, 26 November 2009) the Government submitted that the relatives of the deceased applicants had neither been involved in the domestic proceedings either before or after the applicants’ death nor applied for legal succession in those proceedings. The award in the applicants’ favour was made by the domestic courts in respect of compensation for health damage which under the domestic law was of personal non-transferrable nature and did not provide for legal succession of the right to compensation. Therefore, the applicants’ relatives did not inherit the right to claim the judgment debt. Furthermore, in respect of some of the applicants the judgments had been annulled and thus no compensation debt existed at the moment of the applicants’ death. Therefore, the relevant applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

21.  The applicants did not comment on the Government’s submission.

B.  The Court’s assessment

22.  As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court notes that it has previously recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicants to pursue the application concerning social payments due to their close relatives but not received in their lifetimes (see Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, § 37, 29 July 2010, and Nosov and Others v. Russia, nos. 9117/04 and 10441/04, §§ 29-30, 20 February 2014). However, unlike the Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases (cited above), the present applications concern non-pecuniary compensations for health damage, which was a sole instantaneous act closely linked to the victims. Moreover the relatives of the late applicants failed to submit any evidence in respect of the acceptance of the late applicants’ inheritance. Having regard to the above mentioned circumstances, the Court considers that there is nothing in the cases at hand to conclude that the late applicants’ relatives have standing to continue proceedings.

23.  As regards the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court notes, that in the applications at hand the restoration of time-limit for appeal was closely related to the principle of legal certainty and of the “right to a court” (see, for instance, Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 and 11 others, § 67, 3 May 2007). However, since the restoration of the time-limit under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are closely interrelated, and considering that it has already rejected the relatives’ standing as regards the complaint under the latter provision of the Convention (see the paragraph above), the Court does not consider it necessary to draw a distinction between two aspects of the restoration of time-limit procedure for the purposes of determination of the standing issue.

24.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms M. Arkhipova, Ms M. Kazbekova, Ms Z. Nastuyeva, Ms O. Lopatina, Ms L. Finogenova, Ms R. Shiklyasheva, Ms L. Neyevina and Ms M. Yermolova do not have a legitimate interest in pursuing the proceedings before the Court in the late applicants’ stead.

25.  The Court does not consider that “respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols” requires the examination of these applications, despite the applicants’ death.

26.  In these circumstances the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications in part of the above mentioned applicants and concludes, under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that they should be struck out of its list of cases.

IV.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION

27.  The applicants complained that the unlawful extension of the time-limit for appeal granted by the domestic courts following the defendant authority’s request had resulted in the judgments in their favour being quashed, which consequently constituted a violation of their right to a court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“1.  In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

A.  Admissibility

28.  The Government submitted from the outset that the domestic judgments in respect of some applicants had been executed in full prior to being quashed and they were not required to reimburse them afterwards (see “Enforcement status” in the Appendix). Consequently, the Government considered that the applicants had not suffered any significant disadvantage as a result of the domestic judgments in their favour being quashed.

29.  The applicants maintained their claims.

30.  Article 35 of the Convention provides as follows:

“3.  The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that:

...

(b)  the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.”

31.  The Court notes at the outset that it has already addressed similar issue in the identical case Samoylenko and Others v. Russia (dec.) (nos. 58068/13 and 3 others, 7 March 2017). It thus does not see any ground to depart from the findings in that case.

32.  The Court notes that the main aspect of this criterion is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage. The absence of any such disadvantage can be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute or the importance of the case for the applicant (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, § 33, 1 June 2010, with further references).

33.  In the present case, the applicants do not dispute that the payments due under the initial judgments were made to them in full. Although these judgments were subsequently quashed, the domestic courts ruled that the applicants could not be required to repay the sums paid (see paragraph 10 above). Consequently, the financial implications of the proceedings could not present any particular hardship for the applicants.

34.  As regards their claim that they had suffered distress on account of the enforcement proceedings, the Court observes that the judgments in their favour were quashed by the regional Supreme Court, which also ordered the reversal of the awards paid. The applicants then lodged a supervisory review application with the Presidium of the same court. It was open to them and their lawyers to request while lodging their supervisory review application that the enforcement proceedings be stayed (see paragraph 9 above). They could thus have avoided exposing themselves to the risk of having bailiffs attempt to seize their property pending the examination of their supervisory review application. They however failed to do so.

35.  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicants did not suffer any “significant disadvantage”.

36.  As to the question whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits, the Court points out that it has already held that respect for human rights does not require it to continue the examination of an application when, for example, the relevant law has changed and similar issues have been resolved in other cases before it (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 51, 30 March 2009).

37.  The present case raises a problem of an unjustified extension of the time-limits for appeal resulting in a final judgment in the applicants’ favour being quashed, an issue which has already been addressed by the Court on several occasions, including in a case against Russia (see Magomedov and Others, cited above, §§ 98-101). The examination of these applications on the merits would not bring any new elements to the Court’s existing case-law (see Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 38875/03, § 33, 14 June 2011, and, by contrast, Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, § 49, 19 November 2015).

38.  The Court therefore concludes that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require an examination of the applications on the merits.

39.  Lastly, as regards the third condition of this inadmissibility criterion, namely that the case must have been “duly considered” by a domestic tribunal, the Court notes that the applicants’ case was subject to several rounds of domestic proceedings. The applicants were present at each hearing and were therefore able to submit their arguments in adversarial proceedings.

40.  The three conditions of the inadmissibility criterion having therefore been satisfied, the Court finds that the applications must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention.

41.  As regards the applications where the judgements in the applicants’ favour remained unenforced or the enforcement had been reversed and the paid amounts had been restored (see “Enforcement status” in the Appendix), the Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

42.  The Government considered that the present cases were similar to those previously examined by the Court and in which it did not find a violation of Article 6 (see, for instance, Tolstobrov v. Russia, no. 11612/05, 4 March 2010, and Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, 31 July 2008). They referred to the reasons stated by the Ministry of finance in its request for the reinstatement of the time-limit for appeal, namely that it had never been notified about the proceedings and the judgments delivered against it and was thus deprived of the possibility to lodge an appeal in due time. It is established and not disputed by the parties that a copy of the judgments had never been notified to the Ministry of finance or given to its representatives.

43.  The applicants maintained their claims.

44.  The Court reiterates that the existence of reasons capable of justifying a departure from the principle of legal certainty, even where they are established, is not in itself sufficient to conclude to the absence of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Another important factor should be taken into account, that is the time elapsed from the moment when the person requesting the extension of the time-limits became aware that a judgment was delivered against him. Since the extension of the time-limits for appeal constitutes an interference with the principle of res judicata, a person requesting such an extension should act with sufficient diligence, that is without delay from the moment when he became aware, or ought to have become aware, of the judgment subject to appeal (Magomedov and Others, cited above, § 89, with further references).

45.  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court recalls that it had already had an opportunity to examine the domestic proceedings complained of in the present case in its Magomedov and Others judgment (cited above), where it found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to examine when the Ministry became aware or “ought to have become aware” of the adoption of the judgments against it, in particular in view of a significant lapse of time between the delivery of those judgments and the introduction by the Ministry of its out-of-time appeals (Magomedov and Others, cited above, §§ 98-101). The Court does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

46.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

V.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

47.  Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, cited above, the applicants further complained about violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions relying on the same facts. The relevant part of the aforementioned Article read as follows:

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.”

48.  Having regard to its conclusion under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to consider either the admissibility or the merits of the complaint submitted by the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Magomedov and Others, cited above, § 103, with numerous further references).

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

49.  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

50.  The applicants claimed full amounts awarded by the domestic courts.

51.  The Government argued that no award should be made to the applicants, since they either lost their victim status or their Convention rights had not been violated.

52.  The Court reiterates its finding that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the interference with the principle of legal certainty. As regards the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damage, the Court does not see a causal link between the violation found and the alleged pecuniary damage and rejects those claims. Moreover, it considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which may have been suffered by the applicants.

B.  Costs and expenses

53.  Some of the applicants also claimed various amounts in respect of the costs and expenses.

54.  The Government contested that amount, stating in particular that no evidence was provided by the applicants in support of their claim.

55.  According to the case-law of the Court, an applicant can only be reimbursed for his costs and expenses in so far as their reality, necessity and reasonableness are established. In the present case, having regard to the documents before it and having regard to the findings of violations to which it has been subjected, the Court dismisses the claim for costs and expenses.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Decides to strike the applications in part of the applicants indicated in the Appendix out of its list of cases;

 

3.  Declares the applications in part of the applicants who did not receive the domestic courts’ awards admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

 

4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;

 

5.  Holds that it is not necessary to consider separately the admissibility and the merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

 

6.  Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;

 

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                    Luis López Guerra
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President

 

 




APPENDIX

No.	Application no. Lodged on	Applicant Date of birth (Deceased on) (Heir) Place of residence	Represented by	Final domestic judgment date of delivery (date of becoming final)	Quashing of the final judgments (and order to reverse the execution)	Quashing of the reversal of the execution	Strike out warning	Enforcement status	Strike out	No significant disadvantage	Violation
1.	11421/13 22/01/2013	Khamid Khatutovich Kabardokov 12/03/1949 Tambovskoye	Zaur Borisovich Geshev	12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Viktor Vladimirovich Bocharnikov Russian 19/04/1954 Baksan		12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Yuriy Khadisovich Gergov 16/04/1947 Baksan		12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012	20/11/2014		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Mukhadin Adamovich Dotkulov 29/08/1949 Baksan		12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Zamir Misostovich Kardanov 02/05/1951 Baksan		12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Gali Ezdanovich Shaov 27/09/1956 Baksan		12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
2.	15459/13 09/02/2013	Baydulakh Magometovich Aytekov 08/01/1952 Khabaz	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Askerbiy Aslanovich Baysiyev 29/09/1957 Nalchik		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Ivan Grigoryevich Zaika 18/02/1953 Baksan		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	10/10/2012	13/06/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Viktor Mikhaylovich Krementsov 29/08/1955 Prokhladnyy		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vasiliy Vasilyevich Popovich 05/01/1953 Prokhladnyy		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Mikhail Mikhaylovich Panchenko 14/11/1954 Mayskiy		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Ruslan Galiyevich Umarov 02/03/1954 Nalchik		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Sergey Ivanovich Sobakar 04/09/1958 Novo-Poltavskoye		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
3.	15625/13 09/02/2013	Timur Khasanovich Gukezhev 07/09/1968 Krasnoarmeyskoye	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012	30/05/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Gisa Musayevich Guchapshev 15/10/1956 Tyrnyauz		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Isuf Abuzedovich Kumykov 30/12/1955 Psynadakha		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Mikhail Aniuarovich Sarakhov 28/02/1957 Terek		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Seyfu Yusufovich Khairov 31/03/1954 Novaya Balkariya		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Arsen Khasanbiyevich Urusmambetov 29/10/1959 Nartkala		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012	30/05/2013	24/082015	Enforced	Strike out
		Muayed Khasanovich Khokonov 15/08/1954 Sarmakovo		18/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
4.	15651/13 09/02/2013	Ivan Timofeyevich Arkhipov 17/10/1945 09/02/2015 (Marina Aleksandrovna Arkhipova) Mayskiy	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced	Strike out
		Muayed Sultanovich Gedmishkhov 23/05/1957 Kuba-Taba		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Aleksey Dmitriyevich Dadonov 19/03/1951 28/04/2014 (Olga Alekseyevna Lopatina) Kotlyarevskaya		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced	Strike out
		Khasen Vladimirovich Zhuzhuyev 05/10/1964 Zolskoye		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vladimir Andreyevich Kudritskiy 16/11/1954 Mayskiy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Aleksandr Alekseyevich Larin 18/05/1957 Kotlyarevskaya		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012		27/02/2015 (loss of interest)	Unenforced	Strike out
		Nikolay Fedorovich Menyaylo 12/08/1951 Mayskiy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vladimir Abramovich Shpakov 15/09/1952 Kotlyarevskaya		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012		21/10/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Zhora Khasanovich Erzhibov 12/05/1953 Nartkala		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012	30/05/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
5.	18295/13 20/02/2013	Saladin Khautiyevich Taov 15/12/1950 Nalchik	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Stanislav Sergeyevich Anosov 02/09/1954 Nalchik		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012	10/04/2014	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Borisenko 25/03/1954 Katlyarevskaya		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Sergey Maratovich Magomedov 21/04/1954 Kashkhatau		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012	10/04/2014	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Ruslan Khadisovich Misrokov 29/04/1968 Prokhladnyy		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Aleksandr Nikolayevich Sviridenko 16/07/1952 Nalchik		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012	10/04/2014	21/10/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Sultan Batyrbiyevich Khamshokov 07/11/1968 Arik		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
6.	19142/13 22/02/2013	Khasym Yusupovich Bittirov 31/12/1956 Gerpegezh	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	05/04/2011 (18/04/2011)	07/09/2012	20/11/2014		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Aleksandr Mukharbiyevich Zrumov 14/04/1950 Nalchik		05/04/2011 (18/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Viktor Khazhmuratovich Kugotov 02/04/1956 Kamennomostskoye		05/04/2011 (18/04/2011)	07/09/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
7.	19156/13 22/02/2013	Serezha Sharapiyevich Zholayev 05/11/1952 Novaya Balkariya	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Zaurbi Bilyalovich Kardanov 11/11/1964 Kuba-Taba		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Valeriy Mukhazhidovich Khagov 08/11/1951 Urozhaynoye		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Mukhamed Mukhametovich Kazbekov 13/02/1948 29/04/2013 (Mayya Lakhmanovna Kazbekova) Deyskoye		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Enforced	Strike out
		Mukhamed Matsovich Shabazov 20/07/1946 Tyrnyauz		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015 Enforced, then reversed	Enforced	Strike out
		Boris Sufiyanovich Nastuyev 17/04/1953 27/02/2013 (Zaynaf Abdullayevna Nastuyeva) Verkhnyaya Zhemtala		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Enforced	Strike out
		Khasan Safarbiyevich Gergov 10/06/1959 Nalchik		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012		21/10/2015 Enforced, then reversed	Enforced	Strike out
		Anatoliy Semenovich Zavgorodniy 10/05/1935 Prokhladnyy		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Gennadiy Mukhamedovich Shkhanukov 08/09/1954 Nalchik		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Khashaua Anibalovich Yemkuzhev 18/12/1955 Urozhaynoye		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vladimir Petrovich Yepishin 27/09/1954 Terek		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Gissa Machrailovich Apikov 01/11/1966 Shalushka		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
8.	19161/13 14/02/2013	Auyes Khapitovich Tsirkhov 07/03/1953 Nalchik	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Yuriy Alekseyevich Nekrasov 25/05/1951 Prokhladnyy		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Nikolay Ivanovich Khrushchev 05/12/1926 Prokhladnyy		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vasiliy Maksimovich Lashin 25/01/1939 Priblizhnaya		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Anatoliy Alekseyevich Varchenko 28/08/1941 Prokhladnyy		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Magarram Vali Ogly Nasibov 15/07/1939 Priblizhnaya		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012	13/06/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Vladimir Ivanovich Parshakov 16/03/1949 Prokhladnyy		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012	13/06/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Viktor Nikolayevich Yurchenko 25/07/1954 Primalkinskoye		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vasiliy Alekseyevich Bobrovenko 22/04/1930 Prokhladnyy		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vladimir Timofeyevich Savchenko 09/09/1939 Prokhladnyy		11/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	12/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
9.	19398/13 13/02/2013	Murik Blitovich Boriyev 09/12/1955 Nalchik	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	14/02/2011 (25/02/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013	21/10/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Anatoliy Adalgeriyevich Kumykov 25/05/1952 Baksan		14/02/2011 (25/02/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Mukhazhid Mukhamedovich Organokov 04/12/1949 Baksan		14/02/2011 (25/02/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Sergey Semenovich Panyakin 02/12/1954 Prokhladnyy		14/02/2011 (25/02/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Boris Timofeyevich Khokhlachev 11/03/1953 Nalchik		14/02/2011 (25/02/2011)	07/09/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
10.	19408/13 14/02/2013	Nikolay Konstantinovich Apanasenko 25/11/1938 17/07/2013 (Lidiya Yevteyevna Neyevina) Mayskiy	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Oleg Valentinovich Volodin 28/08/1968 Mayskiy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Viktor Vladimirovich Glybin 22/08/1951 Nalchik		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Enforced but then reversed			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Viktor Ivanovich Klochkov 15/01/1950 Prokhladnyy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Viktor Petrovich Likhtinov 25/04/1952 Mayskiy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012		21/10/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Amir Musarbiyevich Pshigusov 01/12/1957 Zaragizh		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Khasan Kilchukovich Sizhazhev 10/12/1949 Tyrnyauz		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Nikolay Grigoryevich Chikalenko 08/03/1955 Kotlyarevskaya		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Enforced but then reversed			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Timosha Khazhpagovich Shadov 20/07/1956 Tambovskoye		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
11.	19549/13 11/02/2013	Igor Grigoryevich Gredasov 23/12/1946 Kashkhatau	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012	16/05/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Boris Ivanovich Degtyarenko 09/02/1940 Yekaterinogradskaya		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Khamid Bubovich Kardanov 23/12/1954 Zalukokoazhe		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Yaroslav Yaroslavovich Morsin 04/08/1965 Mayskiy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Nikolay Petrovich Potapkin 25/11/1954 Nalchik		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Semochkin 26/07/1954 Priblizhnaya		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012	16/05/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Viktor Gennadyevich Shvedov 24/05/1954 Prokhladnyy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Igor Aleksandrovich Yurlov 20/06/1965 Nalchik		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out		Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
12.	19687/13 11/02/2013	Khusen Mazanovich Aybazov 28/02/1948 Krem-Konstantinovskoye	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out		Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Kharun Satyvaldyyevich Gyzyyev 01/09/1956 Kashkhatau		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Aleksandr Viktorovich Kostenko 18/11/1965 Baksan		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Zhamal Zhapayevich Kulbayev 24/01/1951 Kashkhatau		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Dmitriy Anatolyevich Minin 19/05/1955 Priblizhnaya		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Mustafir Muradinovich Osmanov 11/05/1956 Kendelen		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013	14/11/2015 Loss of interest	Enforced	Strike out
		Aleksandr Nikolayevich Finogenov 27/02/1953 25/02/2015 (Lyudmila Konstantinovna Finogenova) Mayskiy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced	Strike out
13.	19697/13 11/02/2013	Viktor Ivanovich Bidak 21/11/1950 Prokhladnyy	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vladimir Aleksandrovich Budnikov 18/05/1957 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Anatoliy Khambiyevich Dokhov 18/10/1954 Zhemtala		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012	30/05/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Khazhmurat Yakhyayevich Dzhankulayev 19/08/1966 Terek		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012	30/05/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Nikolay Mikhaylovich Mukozhev 06/03/1966 Terek		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Alisag Mukhamedovich Takhushev 04/08/1953 Terek		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Aleksandr Nikolayevich Stepanenko 27/02/1957 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vyacheslav Anibalovich Tsirkhov 06/02/1966 Beloglinskoye		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
14.	19722/13 13/02/2013	Mutalis Mikhaylovich Alkhasov 18/10/1967 Atazhukina	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Khyzyr Khadzhimuratovich Kabardokov 12/08/1954 Nalchik		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012	20/11/2014		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Anatoliy Talevich Kongapshev 30/01/1951 Karagach		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Aleksandr Nikolayevich Plakhov 01/06/1949 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Vasiliy Ilyich Strizhak 13/07/1954 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Akhmet Khasultanovich Kharsiyev 02/01/1955 Babugent		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012	20/11/2014		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Makhamadzhan Narbayevich Khaynazarov 01/05/1954 Kashkhatau		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012		Enforced but then reversed 24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Chernyshov 03/12/1949 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced	Strike out
		Nikolay Khadinovich Shiklyashev 02/02/1954 01/06/2013 (Raya Khasanbiyevna Shiklyasheva) Terek		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced	Strike out
15.	22925/13 13/02/2013	Sergey Sobirovich Abdurakhmonov 14/06/1963 Prokhladnyy	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Ruslan Khazhislamovich Gongapshev 13/10/1954 Sarmakovo		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Vladimir Anatolyevich Derepovko 26/02/1940 Prokhladnyy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Valeriy Aleksandrovich Korovin 09/09/1952 Terek		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Aleksey Timofeyevich Kozlovtsev 23/01/1952 Baksan		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Sergey Petrovich Laptev 30/07/1957 Priblizhnaya		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012	16/05/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Pavel Alekseyevich Nikitenko 18/12/1954 Mayskiy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Muayed Mastafovich Surmametov 07/02/1956 Zaragizh		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Zaurbek Ismagilovich Shanibov 12/02/1959 Nalchik		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012	16/05/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
16.	22935/13 13/02/2013	Eduard Chartiyevich Abazov 17/06/1968 Dygulubgey	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Fedya Khuseynovich Zhemgurazov 29/07/1956 Zhemtala		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Sergey Konstantinovich Zykov 25/09/1953 Novo-Pokrovskiy		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012	13/06/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Lazarev 09/02/1947 Baksan		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
17.	22953/13 25/02/2013	Tobi Khasanbiyevich Kushkhov 07/02/1953 Baksan	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012	20/11/2014		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Vladimir Kurgokovich Sibilov 10/08/1949 Dzhulat		12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Viktor Andreyevich Khalin 27/09/1954 Novoye Khamidiye		12/04/2011 (25/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
18.	23006/13 12/02/2013	Shota Aleksandrovich Yermolov 10/07/1939 16/10/2015 (Marina Shotayevna Yermolova) Yekaterinogradskaya	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	11/04/2011 (21/04/2011)	12/10/2012	16/05/2013	21/10/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Vasiliy Ivanovich Shevyakov 01/09/1947 Mayskiy		11/04/2011 (21/04/2011)	12/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Eduard Borisovich Chikhradze 14/08/1967 Nalchik		11/04/2011 (21/04/2011)	12/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Valentina Grigoryevna Polyakova 07/07/1935 Nalchik		11/04/2011 (21/04/2011)	12/10/2012	16/05/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Khuseyn Seyfullakhovich Gekkiyev 06/01/1968 Tyrnyauz		11/04/2011 (21/04/2011)	12/10/2012	16/05/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Sergey Otarovich Gobedzhishvili 03/01/1967 Nalchik		11/04/2011 (21/04/2011)	12/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Anatoliy Khizirovich Zhambikov 10/12/1939 Nalchik		11/04/2011 (21/04/2011)	12/10/2012	16/05/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
19.	23109/13 13/02/2013	Mikhail Vladimirovich Belunin 01/01/1955 Prokhladnyy	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	16/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Nikolay Nikolayevich Marchenko 24/07/1949 Prokhladnyy		16/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012	16/05/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Gennadiy Andreyevich Moiseyenko 28/05/1949 Mayskiy		16/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Yuriy Grigoryevich Medvedev 23/10/1955 Mayskiy		16/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012	16/05/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Talgat Avzalovich Nurmukhametov 01/01/1947 Prokhladnyy		16/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012	16/05/2013	21/10/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Aleksandr Vladimirovich Pinyayev 06/06/1952 Mayskiy		16/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012	16/05/2013	21/10/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Petr Ivanovich Slipenko 15/08/1958 Prokhladnyy		16/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Tayib Ayubovich Tadzhibov 14/11/1958 Tyrnyauz		16/02/2011 (01/03/2011)	07/09/2012	16/05/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
20.	23135/13 13/02/2013	Ivan Semenovich Kachanov 10/08/1942 Primalkinskoye	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Viktor Petrovich Lichmanov 16/08/1947 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Sergey Timofeyevich Nikolayev 24/12/1954 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Yuriy Stepanovich Obukhov 25/09/1950 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Garri Mikhaylovich Pogosov 03/01/1958 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Sergey Leonidovich Sadovoy 31/08/1962 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012	16/05/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Sergey Viktorovich Kharitonov 19/10/1950 Prokhladnyy		04/04/2011 (15/04/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
21.	23145/13 13/02/2013	Valeriy Akhmatovich Gurtuyev 01/03/1968 Gerpegezh	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Muayed Khusenovich Ligidov 29/08/1950 Sarmakovo		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Mukhamed Anatolyevich Maremshaov 25/10/1950 Nalchik		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012	30/05/2013	21/10/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Vasiliy Ivanovich Martynyuk 23/09/1951 Nalchik		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Zamir Gumarovich Tukhuzhev 11/12/1956 Nartan		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Khusein Abdullayevich Shakhabov 03/04/1955 Kashkhatau		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Nikolay Yakovlevich Shtelvakh 19/06/1956 Terek		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Mukharbek Mukhadinovich Shomakhov 29/11/1962 Nizhniy Akbash		12/04/2011 (22/04/2011)	10/10/2012	30/05/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
22.	26466/13 11/02/2013	Muzafar Tatukovich Atabiyev 13/05/1966 Nalchik	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013	21/10/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Boris Aliyevich Beppayev 25/01/1956 Nalchik		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Aleksandr Vladimirovich Katasonov 28/08/1952 Nalchik		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	07/09/2012		24/08/2015	Unenforced	Strike out
		Khachim Dinovich Pshikhachev 29/09/1957 Baksan		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013	24/08/2015	Enforced	Strike out
		Ruslan Yuryevich Tumov 28/07/1968 Terek		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	07/09/2012	13/06/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage
		Aniuar Zhansitovich Taov 07/04/1955 Terek		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Aleksandr Amirkhanovich Shomakhov 10/06/1955 Tambovskoye		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
		Eduard Dikanovich Shomakhov 28/02/1956 Terek		10/03/2011 (22/03/2011)	07/09/2012			Unenforced			Violation of Article 6 of the Convention
23.	58066/13 26/08/2013	Ruslan Marufovich Nishanov 07/06/1964 Nalchik	Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov	17/01/2011 (27/02/2011)	28/02/2013	11/07/2013		Enforced		No significant disadvantage