CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s63D38A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:8pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD257D4B4 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE8489E90 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE8787440 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s46BFE960 { margin-left:10.35pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sAA3DCF5F { margin-left:10.35pt; text-indent:-10.35pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s69AD57A4 { width:19.88pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 22 February 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13813/06 Yelena Yevgenyevna SHIBAYEVA against Russia and 13 other applications (see list appended) 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals. Their names and dates of birth are given in the table below. They live in various parts of Russia. The applicant in the first case, Ms   Shibayeva (application no. 13813/06) is represented before the Court by Mr V.A.   Veselov, a lawyer practising in Serpukhov, Moscow Region. Ms   Orlova and Mr   Toropov (application no.   18597/16) are represented by V.V.   Bogolyubova, a lawyer practising in Chekhov, Moscow Region. A.     The circumstances of the cases 2.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicants sued various state and municipal institutions, referred to in the Appendix as the “debtor institutions”, in unrelated sets of court proceedings. 4.     On the dates set out below, the domestic courts, in separate judgments, made awards in the applicants’ favour, to be executed by the debtor institutions. The particulars of each judgment are summarised in the Appendix. 5.     The awards became enforceable on the dates listed in the Appendix. 6.     It appears that the final judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour have not been fully enforced to date. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Civil Code 7.     Before 1 September 2014 (the date of entry into force of Law no.   99 ‑ FZ of 5   May 2014, which amended the Civil Code) the status of institutions was regulated by Articles 120 and 296 of the Civil Code of Russia. After that date their status has been set out in Articles   123.21 ‑ 123.22 of the same code. The content of those provisions is summarised below. 8.     Institutions ( учреждения ) are non-profit organisations created by their owners for the performance of managerial, socio-cultural or other functions of a non-commercial character. 9.     They have the right of operational control ( оперативное управление ) of property allocated to them by their owner. That means that they possess and use such property in accordance with the goals set for their activity and the purpose of the property, and, if not otherwise established by law, dispose of it with the approval of the property’s owner. The owner has the right to withdraw redundant property which is either not being used or which is not being used as intended and which it assigned to an institution or which was acquired by the institution using funds allocated to it by the owner for the acquisition of that property. The owner of the property has the right to make use of property withdrawn from the institution at its own discretion. 10.     An institution may be created by an individual or a legal entity (a private institution), by federal or regional authorities (state institutions) or by local authorities (municipal institutions). 11.     As of 8   May 2010 the Civil Code distinguishes between several types of state and municipal institution: autonomous ( автономное ), budget ‑ financed ( бюджетное ) or treasury ( казенное ). 12.     A treasury institution meets its debts with the funds at its disposal. If those funds are insufficient, the owner of the property bears subsidiary responsibility for those debts. 13.     An autonomous institution meets its debts with all the property assigned to it for operational control, with the exception of immovable property and particularly valuable movable property assigned to it by the owner of that property or which was acquired by the autonomous institution with funds allocated to it by the owner. The owner of an autonomous institution’s property is not held responsible for that institution’s debts. 14.     A budget-financed institution meets its debts using all the property it has by right of operational control, both assigned to it by the property’s owner and that which it acquired with income derived from profit-bearing activities. An exception applies to immovable property and to particularly valuable movable property assigned to the budget-financed institution by the owner of the property or acquired by the institution with funds allocated by the owner of the property. The owner of a budget-financed institution’s property is not held liable for the institution’s debts. 15 .     Under Article   56   §   3 of the Civil Code (as in force before 5   May 2015) subsidiary liability for a legal entity’s obligations could be imposed on the owner of the legal entity’s property or on other persons who had a right to issue binding instructions to the legal entity or determine its actions in any other way, if the insolvency was caused by such persons, and if the legal entity’s assets proved to be insufficient. 2.     Budget Code 16.     Article   6 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation contains a list of entities “in receipt of budget funds” ( получатели бюджетных средств ). The list includes, in particular, public institutions. 17.     Under Article 161   of the Budget Code (as in force before 8   May 2010), a budget-financed institution is an organisation established by the Russian Federation, by a constituent subject of the Russian Federation or by a municipal entity for the performance of managerial, socio-cultural or other non-profit functions, whose activities are funded from the relevant budget. Organisations to which state or municipal property is allocated on the basis of the right of operational control, except for treasury enterprises (« казенные предприятия ») and autonomous institutions, are considered as budget-funded institutions for the purposes of the Budget Code. 18.     From 8 May 2010 the above-mentioned provision provides that a treasury institution is funded from the federal, regional or local budget. Articles 242.3-242.5 set out the methods for executing judicial decisions which order payments from federal, regional or local budgets for the debts of treasury institutions. In particular, they provide that the Federal Treasury has the right to freeze the bank accounts of a debtor institution which fails to execute a court decision or to seek additional funding if the debtor institution lacks the necessary funds. If an institution lacks the funds to fulfil its financial obligations, the federal, regional or local authority in charge of disbursing budget funds is responsible for the institution’s debts. 3.     Compensation Act 19.     Section   1(1) of Federal Law No. 68-FZ of 30   April 2010 (in force as of 4   May 2010) deals with compensation for violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time or of the right to the enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time (“the Compensation Act”). It entitles a party to bring a court action for compensation for a violation of the right to enforcement, within a reasonable time, of a domestic judgment establishing that a debt is to be recovered from the State budget. 20.     By Ruling no.   130/64 of 23   December 2010, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia jointly decided that the Compensation Act did not apply to claims for compensation for delayed enforcement of judgments against private individuals or organisations not in receipt of budget funds. COMPLAINTS 21.     The applicants complain, in particular, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 about delays in the enforcement of judgments in their favour. Ms   Shibayeva, Ms   Tokareva, Mr   Boyarkin, Ms   Kurilkova, Ms   Yunusova, Ms   Gomoyunova and Mr   Lushkov also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy for that problem at their disposal. 22.     Mr Volkov and Ms Volkova (application no. 4503/07),   Mr Lushkov (application no.   54505/11), Ms Orlova and Mr Toropov (application no.   18597/16) also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they have had to live in appalling conditions following the failure of the debtor institutions to execute the judgments in their favour. 23.     Ms Orlova and Mr Toropov further complain under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention that the debtor institution unlawfully used part of a plot of land belonging to them. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     What was the status of the state and municipal institutions (учреждения) (referred to as the “debtor institutions” in the Appendix) before and after 8   May 2010? Have they been liquidated? If so, when and on what grounds? 2.     Are the debts owed by the state and municipal institutions to the applicants imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and, if so, to what extent (see, mutatis mutandis , Yavorivskaya v. Russia , no. 34687/02, § 25, 21 July 2005, see also Zhovner v. Ukraine , no.   56848/00, § 37, 29 June 2004; Piven v. Ukraine , no.   56849/00, § 39, 29   June 2004; Furman v. Russia , no. 5945/04, § 25, 5 April 2007; Denisenkov v. Russia , no. 40642/02, §§   53-57, 22 September 2005; and Gerasimova v. Russia (dec.), no. 24669/02, 16 September 2004)? In particular, were the debtor institutions owned and funded by state or local authorities? 3.     Have the final judgments in the applicants’ favour (tabulated below) been enforced fully and in a timely manner? If not, has this violated the applicants’ right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article   1   of Protocol   No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III)?   4.     If the institutions’ debts are not imputable to the State (see Question 2 above), did the State authorities diligently assist the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour (see Kunashko v. Russia , no.   36337/03, §§   38 ‑ 49, 17 December 2009, with further references)?   5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their right to have the final judgments in their favour enforced fully and in a timely manner, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§   51 ‑ 58, 10 April 2008; Moroko v. Russia , no. 20937/07, §§ 25-29 and 48, 12   June 2008; Yavorivskaya v. Russia (dec.), no. 34687/02, 21 July 2005; Gerasimova v. Russia (dec.), no. 24669/02, 16   September 2004; and, mutatis mutandis , Kudła v. Poland [GC] , no. 30210/96, § 132-60, ECHR 2000-XI)? In particular, what was the mechanism for engaging the subsidiary liability of the authorities for the failure of a state or municipal institution to execute a final judgment under domestic law? The Government are requested to provide examples from domestic case-law.   6.     Does the domestic remedy introduced by the Compensation Act of 30   April 2010 apply to cases where the domestic judicial award is made against a state or municipal institution? In the affirmative, the Government are requested to provide domestic case-law demonstrating that this remedy is effective in practice. If this remedy does not apply, was there a violation of the applicants’ right to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 of the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no.   33509/04, §§   96 ‑ 117, ECHR   2009 ‑ I, and Gerasimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11 and 60822/11, § 166, 1 July 2014)? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Applications no. 54505/11 Lushkov v. Russia, no. 4503/07 Volkovy v.   Russia and no.   18597/16 Orlova and Toropov v. Russia   With regard to the applicants’ allegation that following the delays in enforcement of the final judgments in their favour they were left to live in appalling conditions, has there been a violation of their right to respect for their private life and home, as required by Article 8 of the Convention?   Application no.   18597/16 Orlova and Toropov v. Russia   With regard to the applicants’ allegation that the debtor institution unlawfully used part of their land, has there been a violation of their right to respect for their property, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   APPENDIX   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant name Date of birth Place of residence Debtor institution Judgment by Date of the judgment Its entry into force The award Date of enforcement (if enforced) Additional remarks   13813/06 09/03/2006 Yelena Yevgenyevna SHIBAYEVA 10/06/1960 Serpukhov   Gosudarstvennoye uchrezhdeniye veterinarii Moskovskoy oblasti "Serpuhovskaya Gorodskaya stantsiya po borbe s bolezniyami zhivotnih" (ГУ ветеринарии Московской области «Серпуховская городская станция по борьбе с болезнями животных») Serpuhovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region   1) 20/10/2005 14/12/2005 Reinstatement in work+ EUR 1,857   2) 22/06/2006 EUR   3,760 in respect of non-payment of wages from 21   October 2005 till 31   May 2006 1) applicant reinstated on 19/12/2006       2) partly enforced on 09/02/2007 (EUR   3,293 paid to the applicant) Two complaints of bailiffs’ inaction were dismissed on 28/09/2006 and on 28/02/2007 by the Serpuhovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region.   25795/06 29/05/2006 Yevgeniy Vasilyevich KRASIKOV 30/01/1944 Moscow FGU “Russian Agency of Energy Efficiency” (Федеральное государственное учреждение «Российское агентство энергоэффективности») Justice of Peace of court circuit No.   371 of the Taganskiy District of Moscow 25/12/2007 27/05/2008 EUR 1,976 Not enforced     12961/07 18/02/2007 Varvara Nikolayevna KIM 02/06/1923 Khabarovsk   Sergey MA 29/10/1956 Khabarovsk Krayevoye gosudarstvennoye uchrezhdeniye “Khabarovskoe upravleniye avtomobilnyh dorog” (КГУ «Хабуправавтодор») Tsentralny District Court of Khabarovsk 20/11/2003 16/12/2003 Flat   Modified by decision of the same court of 04/04/2008 28/05/2008 Awarded EUR   71,083 (instead of a flat) Not enforced     4503/07 01/12/2006 Aleksandr Vladimirovich VOLKOV 29/04/1947 Kaluga   Nina Viktorovna VOLKOVA 18/09/1945 Kaluga Municipal institution “SEZ”   Municipal unitary entreprise “Upravlyayushchaya kompaniya mnogokvartirnymi zhilymi domami Leninskogo okruga” Kaluzhskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region 1) 29/12/2005 19/06/2006 EUR 282 (to be paid by the debtor institution) EUR 1,057 (to be paid by the municipal unitary enterprise) Repair works (to be performed by the institution and the enterprise)   2) 15/05/2006 19/06/2006 Repair works (to be performed by the institution and the enterprise)   3) 04/12/2006 05/02/2007 (Index-linking of the sums awarded by decision of 29/12/2005 against the enterprise) EUR 98 to both applicants EUR 7 to first applicant EUR 4 to second applicant 1) partly enforced: - on 23/08/2006 by the municipal unitary enterprise - on 18/07/2007 by the debtor institution in respect of the repair works       2) not enforced             3) not enforced     4294/09* 06/01/2009 Margarita Ivanovna TOKAREVA 03/01/1966 Magadan   Yevgeniy Nikolayevich BOYARKIN 14/06/1966 Magadan   Anna Nikolayevna KURILKOVA 12/09/1970 Magadan State Institution “Federalny Dolgovoi Centr” (Federal Debts Recovery Centre) of the Government of the Russian Federation Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow 17/12/2001 Apparently ten days later EUR 1,361       17/12/2001 Apparently ten days later EUR 1,050       17/12/2001 Apparently ten days later EUR 959 Not enforced By the judgments of 29/05/2008 (in force on 14/07/2008), 28/05/2008 (in force on 21/07/2008) and of 26/06/2008 (in force on 12/11/2008) the Justice of the Peace of court circuit no. 7 of Magadan dismissed the applicants’ subsidiary liability claim against the Ministry of Finance of Russia.   22723/09 21/02/2009 Valentina Viktorovna PETROVA 19/10/1955 St Petersburg Municipal institution “Lomonosovskaya Tsentralnaya rayonnaya bolnitsa municipalnogo obrazovaniya “Lomonosovskiy rayon” (MU LRTsB) Lomonosovskiy District Court of St Petersburg 27/04/2006 06/06/2006 EUR 2,640 Not enforced New remedy exhausted 22/09/2010 St Petersburg City Court returned the action on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to lodge it. The applicant did not appeal.   43092/09 25/05/2009 Yuriy Alekseyevich KOROLEV 16/04/1954 Klimovsk   MU Newspaper “Mestnye vesti” (МУ «Местные вести») 1) Klimovsk town court of the Moscow region   2) Justice of the peace of court circuit No.   70 of the Klimovskiy District of the Moscow Region         3) Justice of the peace of court circuit No.   70 of the Klimovskiy District of the Moscow Region   1) 07/02/2007 15/06/2007 EUR 1,739     2) 20/03/2007 26/06/2007 EUR 61               3) 01/10/2008 09/12/2008 (as modified on appeal) EUR 563 Not enforced 1)   The debtor institution was liquidated on 24/07/2009.     2) On 16/12/2009 (in force as of 22/04/2010) the Klimovsk town court of the Moscow region granted the applicant’s subsidiary liability claim for recovery of the unpaid judgment debt against the local administration, and awarded the applicant EUR   2,640. This sum was paid to the applicant on 29/10/2010.   3) On 18/02/2011 the Moscow Regional Court refused to accept for examination the applicant’s action for compensation under the Compensation Act as the final judgment in his favour did not order any payment at the expense of the state or local budget. The decision became final on 17/05/2011.   5489/10 12/01/2010 Guzyal Gabbasovna YUNUSOVA 12/06/1953 Izhevsk   MU “Gorodskoye zhilishchnoye upravleniye” (МУ «Городское жилищное управление») Industrialniy District court of Izhevsk 1) 15/09/2006 09/10/2006   2) 07/05/2007 21/06/2007   3) 22/10/2007 19/03/2008   4) 27/12/2007 19/03/2008   Repair works   Not enforced By decree of the local administration of 19   August 2011 the debtor institution became MAU “Gorodskoye zhilishchnoye upravleniye Upravlyayushchaya kompaniya v zhilishchno-kommunalnom khozyaystve” (autonomous institution).   5491/10 12/01/2010 Lyudmila Petrovna GOMOYUNOVA 15/12/1957 Izhevsk   MU “Gorodskoye zhilishchnoye upravleniye” (МУ «Городское жилищное управление») Industrialniy District court of Izhevsk 26/09/2008 29/10/2008 Repair works Not enforced By decree of the local administration of 19   August 2011 the debtor institution became MAU “Gorodskoye zhilishchnoye upravleniye Upravlyayushchaya kompaniya v zhilishchno-kommunalnom khozyaystve” (autonomous institution).                 54505/11 01/07/2011 Kamil Yunusovich LUSHKOV 10/12/1931 Saratov MU “Direktsiya yedinogo zakazchika po Volzhskomu rayonu g.Saratova” (МУ «Дирекция единого заказчика по Волжскому району г.Саратова») Volzhskiy District Court of Saratov 25/03/2008 Apparently ten days later Repair works partly enforced in October 2009                   18282/13 27/02/2013 Shavkyat Ibragimovich BAKHTEYEV 04/10/1945 Ulyanovsk State Institution “Federalny Dolgovoi Centr” (Federal Debts Recovery Centre) of the Government of the Russian Federation Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow 12/02/2002 22/02/2002 EUR 5,542   08/04/2004 18/04/2004 EUR 4,220     17/08/2011 27/08/2011 EUR 7,264 Apparently not enforced   The liquidation proceedings in respect of the debtor institution were initiated on 21 December 2000. It appears that they are pending to date. In particular, on 25 October 2011 a liquidation commission was established and a liquidator appointed in the insolvency proceedings.                 55090/15 02/11/2015 Aleksandr Gennadyevich KALASHNIKOV 25/08/1975 Moscow FGAU “SK TEK” (Федеральное государственное автономное учреждение «Современные коммуникации топливно-энергетического комплекса») Meschanskiy district court of Moscow 23/10/2013 27/06/2014 EUR 10,697 Apparently not enforced   On 30 July 2015 the applicant brought a subsidiary liability claim against the owner of the liquidated institution, but it was rejected on 4 August 2015, on the ground that the case had already been decided in other proceedings.                 18597/16 29/03/2016 Yekaterina Mikhailovna ORLOVA 11/09/1949 Chekhov, Moscow Region   Oleg Valentinovich TOROPOV 16/04/1953 Pokrov, Moscow Region   GU МО “Mosavtodor” (Государственное учреждение Московской области «Управление автомобильных дорог Московской области «Мосавтодор») Chekhov Town Court of the Moscow Region 29/10/2014 18/05/2015 (as modified on appeal) Construction works EUR 616 to 1st applicant EUR 190 to 2nd applicant Not enforced                   36405/16 24/05/2016 Igor Valeryevich KOTELNIKOV 10/11/1963 Kamenka, Penza Region   FGU “Serdobskaya kvartirno-ekspluatatsionnaya chast rayona” (ФГУ «Сердобская квартирно-эксплуатационная часть района») Kamenka Town Court of the Penza Region 16/02/2009 26/02/2009 repairs of water supply system in a block of flats Not enforced