[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> LEGLER AND MARYIN v. RUSSIA - 724/06 (Judgment : Violation of Right to a fair trial (Enforcement proceedings - Access to court)) [2017] ECHR 1074 (30 November 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/1074.html Cite as: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1130JUD000072406, CE:ECHR:2017:1130JUD000072406, [2017] ECHR 1074

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF LEGLER AND MARYIN v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 724/06 and 38416/09)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

30 November 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Legler and Maryin 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 Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 November 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 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 TO THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained 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, §§ 204-06, 9 October 2014). The present cases are similar to Liseytseva and Maslov (ibid., §§ 208-19) 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 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 these applications disclose 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);

 

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 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                             Luis López Guerra

Acting Deputy 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)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth	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 (in euros)	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.	724/06 20/12/2005	Sergey Yuryevich LEGLER 26/11/1976	Syntin Artem Vyacheslavovich Omsk	Leninskiy District Court of Omsk, 31/03/2005	11/04/2005	Pending More than 12 years and 5 months and 28 days	14,315   Monetary compensation instead of providing an apartment, GUP "Omskoe oblastnoe dorozhno-ekspluatacionnoe predpriyatie avtomobilnyh dorog "Omskavtodor"", core activity: maintenance and renovation of roads	14,315	2,000
2.	38416/09 18/05/2009	Nikolay Nikolayevich MARYIN 04/10/1946		Justice of the Peace of the 3rd Judicial Circuit of Novyi Urengoi, 22/07/2002   Justice of the Peace of the 2d Judicial Circuit of Novyi Urengoi, 02/03/2005	27/01/2003           13/03/2005	Pending More than 14 years, 8 months, 12 days     Pending More than 12 years, 6 months, 26 days	25,502   (Decisions partly enforced 104,000 RUB) Salary arrears, FGUP "Urengoiskoe territorialnoe dorozhno-stroitelnoe upravlenie", core activity: construction and maintenance of roads primarily for military purposes	22,654	2,000

 




---

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