tended to the applicant's terms of employment. The State had not prohibited the seizure of the company's property. On the contrary, the debtor company was an independent entity and was not, as such, controlled by any State body.
51. The Government concluded, accordingly, that the judgment was given against a private debtor. To this extent, the case was similar to the cases of Reynbakh v. Russia and Bobrova v. Russia, in which the Court found that the principle that judgments must be executed cannot be interpreted as compelling the State to substitute itself for a private defendant in the case of the latter's insolvency (see Reynbakh v. Russia, No. 23405/03, § 18, 29 September 2005, and Bobrova v. Russia, No. 24654/03, § 16, 17 November 2005). They maintained that the judgments against the company could not be enforced owing to the company's lack of funds, and in these circumstances the State could not be held responsible for the continued non-enforcement of the judgments. The measures applied by the authorities were adequate and sufficient and they acted diligently in order to assist the creditor in execution of a judgment (see Fociac v. Romania, No. 2577/02, §§ 69 - 70, 3 February 2005). They invited the Court to reject the complaint as incompatible ratione personae.
52. The applicant maintained that the debtor company was, in fact, a State-run enterprise controlled by Yakutsk Town Council and financed from the town budget. Its liquidation was ordered by the authorities. Moreover, the Town Council had transferred the company's property to a newly-created company MUP Teploenergiya. The latter had the same customers and suppliers, performed exactly the same functions and was registered at the same address as its predecessor. The debtor enterprise could not have been regarded as private, since it supplied heating to all premises in Yakutsk, in accordance with pre-established tariffs. In these circumstances the Town Council was liable for the debts of the company if the latter lacked funds to honour its obligations, as decided by the judgment of 7 December 2000 in the applicant's favour.
b. The Court's assessment
53. The Court reiterates at the outset that, where an applicant complains of an inability to enforce a court award in his or her favour, the extent of the State's obligations under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 varies depending on whether the debtor is the High Contracting Party within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention or a private individual (see Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), No. 25867/02, 31 May 2007). Where a judgment is against the State, the latter must take the initiative to enforce it fully and in due time (see Akashev v. Russia, No. 30616/05, §§ 21 - 23, 12 June 2008, and Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, §§ 33 - 42, ECHR 2002-III). When the debtor is a private individual or company, the position is different, since the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for debts of private individuals or companies and its obligations under the Convention are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the respective court awards, for example, through a bailiff service or insolvency procedures (see, for example, Kesyan v. Russia, No. 36496/02, 19 October 2006, and Fociac, cited above, § 70).
54. Given the special status of municipal unitary enterprises under Russian law (see paragraphs 35 - 40 above), they can be qualified neither as State authorities, such as the local administration, nor placed in the same category as ordinary private companies. On the one hand, a municipal unitary enterprise is set up by a public authority, which remains the owner of the property, retains control over the use of property in accordance with the designated purpose, receives part of the enterprise's profit and has the right to reorganise or liquidate the enterprise and to transfer it
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
