Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of OOO Gelendzhik-Snab v. Russia:<\/p>\n
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) due to the non-enforcement of a domestic court judgment in favor of OOO Gelendzhik-Snab against a federal State unitary enterprise (FGUP). The Court determined that the FGUP did not have sufficient independence from the State, making the State responsible for its debts. The authorities failed to take adequate measures to enforce the judgment, leading to the violation. The Court also held that there was no need to separately examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy). The Court ordered Russia to ensure the enforcement of the domestic judicial decision and to pay the applicant company 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
\n 2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Procedure:** Details the case’s origin, the applicant’s representation, and notification to the Russian Government.
\n * **Facts:** Summarizes the applicant’s complaint regarding the non-enforcement of a judicial decision against a federal State unitary enterprise and the lack of effective remedy.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the case, as the relevant events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022.
\n * **Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** States that the non-enforcement of a judgment is a violation of the right to a fair trial. The Court refers to previous case-law, particularly Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, which dealt with similar issues. The Court concludes that the State is responsible for the debts of the FGUP due to its lack of independence and the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment.
\n * **Article 13:** Finds it unnecessary to give a separate ruling on the lack of an effective remedy, given the findings under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
\n * **Article 41:** Orders Russia to enforce the judgment and to pay the applicant company 2,000 euros.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the complaints admissible, finds a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, orders the enforcement of the domestic judgment, and mandates the payment of compensation.
\n 3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **State Responsibility:** The decision reinforces the principle that the State can be held responsible for the debts of State-owned enterprises if those enterprises lack sufficient institutional and operational independence.
\n * **Enforcement of Judgments:** The ruling underscores the importance of the timely and effective enforcement of domestic court judgments as an integral part of the right to a fair trial.
\n * **Jurisdiction over Pre-Withdrawal Cases:** The Court explicitly asserts its jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.<\/p>\n
: This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who have similar cases against Russia related to the non-enforcement of judgments against state-owned enterprises, especially for events that occurred before Russia’s exclusion from the Council of Europe.<\/p>\n