CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .s37AA5D7A { height:29.95pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8DCB0A7 { height:11.55pt } .sF4B5263B { height:25.7pt } .s41375D7A { height:27.85pt } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 23 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34749/09 Yuriy Nikolayevich ORLOV against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. The application numbers, dates, the applicants’ names and their personal details are set out in the table below. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On various dates the applicants brought proceedings against private parties and obtained final court decisions in their favour. The decisions, by which private persons were ordered to pay the applicants certain sums and perform certain acts, became final and enforceable. The Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings against the debtors. Discontented with the lack of progress in the enforcement proceedings, the applicants applied to have the bailiffs’ actions or inaction recognised as unlawful. The domestic courts ruled in the applicants’ favour. The applicants initiated civil proceedings under Article 1069 of the Civil Code against the respective State authorities, claiming monetary relief for the State’s failure to assist them in enforcing the judgments against the private parties. Some applicants were denied monetary relief, while others found their award to be too small. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a failure by the State to provide them adequate and efficient legal assistance in the enforcement of judgments against private parties. Mr Gorlov also complains under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention that a failure by the State to assist him in the enforcement of the judgment resulted in a violation of his property rights. QUESTIONS to the parties 1.     Have the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour been enforced? If so, what is the date of the full enforcement of each judgement? 2.     Did the State authorities duly assist the applicants in the enforcement of the judgments against private parties, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (see Kesyan v. Russia , no. 36496/02, §§ 64-65, 19 October 2006; Kunashko v. Russia , no. 36337/03, §§ 38-39, 17 December 2009; and Smagilov v. Russia (dec.), no.   24324/05, § 37, 13 November 2014) 3.     Did the applicants exhaust the available domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints concerning the State’s assistance in the enforcement of the judgments in their favour? If so, were they provided appropriate redress? 4.     In application no.   59958/13 did the actions or inaction of the State authorities in the enforcement proceedings against private parties preclude further enforcement of the judgments and thus result in a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention rights of Mr Gorlov? (see Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no.   74694/01, 1 April 2004) APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Represented by Domestic judgment in applicant’s favour Article 1069 proceedings (final domestic decisions)   34749/09 06/04/2009 Yuriy Nikolayevich ORLOV 20/06/1946 Tsybanobalka, Krasnodar Region     Anapa District Court of the Krasnodar Region on 26 February 2008, 16   December 2010, 2 February 2011, 26   July 2016   Krasnodar Regional Court on 30 October 2012 Krasnodar Regional Court on 17 September 2012, 4   March 2014   Moscow City Court on 26 February 2013   40289/10 16/04/2010 Aleksandr Vasilyevich YERMOLAYEV 17/04/1949 Rtishchevo, Saratov Region     Commercial Court of the Saratov Region on 1 December 1999, 8 June 2001   Federal Commercial Court of the Povolzhye Region on 26   July 2010   Saratov Regional Court on 4 May 2011   65526/11 03/10/2011 Rustem Gazizovich SAFIULLIN 17/07/1956 Ufa     Ordzhonikidze District Court of Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan on 13 February 2009   Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan on 6 November 2007 Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan on 6 December 2011   31068/12 02/05/2012 Anna Gennadyevna PASTUKHOVA-GLEBOVA 08/11/1974 Yekaterinburg   Lidiya Vladimirovna GLEBOVA 29/07/1948 Yekaterinburg   Verh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg on 28 November 2008   Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 1 March 2012   10999/13 29/01/2013 Oleg Anatolyevich TURUTIN 17/08/1968 Lipetsk   Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk on 25 July 2011, 23 April 2012 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 23 May 2013   57876/13 19/08/2013 Galina Fedorovna IGNATENKO 28/06/1933 Khabarovsk     Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk on 22 September 2010   Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region on 16 November 2010, 31 January 2011   Khabarovsk District Court of the Khabarovsk Region on 28 June 2011/entered into force on 6 July 2011 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 21 May 2013   Khabarovsk Regional Court on 21 June 2013   59958/13 23/07/2013 Maksim Grigoryevich GORLOV 14/05/1939 Moscow   Basmanniy District Court of Moscow on 22 March 2006   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 19 June 2013     65409/13 03/10/2013 Natalya Igorevna KONOPLEVA 17/05/1963 Bonate Sotto (BG)     Samara Regional Court on 18 May 2009   Sovetskiy District Court of Samara on 30 July 2010, 20 October 2011, 19 December 2011, 9 August 2012, 9 August 2012 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 7 May 2013       3192/14 14/12/2013 Natalya Sergeyevna DANILOVA Kostroma     Sverdlovskiy District (Town) Court of the Kostroma Region on 24 November 1981   Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 8 of Kostroma on 8 September 2008 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 17 October 2013   4726/14 21/11/2013 Valentina Fedorovna SABLINA 18/08/1946 Saratov     Leninskiy District Court of Saratov on 9 December 1999, 13 February 2003, 5 May 2015, 2 November 2017 Saratov Regional Court on 5 September 2013     18862/14 20/02/2014 Ivan Iosifovich TYAGLO 21/09/1943 Yessentuki     Essentuki Town Court of the Stavropol Region on 23 October 2008, 18 June 2009, 22 March 2010, 15 February 2011, 26 March 2012, 24 April 2013 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 7 April 2010     76973/17 22/10/2017 Oleg Sergeyevich DZHURKO 16/05/1937 Moscow Konstantin Yevgenyevich KUZMIN Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow on 22 November 2013   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 7 September 2017