CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 mars 2019

.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 } .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 }   Communicated on 1 March 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35535/18 Tatyana Aleksandrovna IYULSKAYA against Russia lodged on 12 July 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged failure of the State to assist the applicant in enforcement of a judgment against a private party (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The applicant was awarded 580 euros under that judgment. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the State authorities duly assist the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment against a private party, 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)?