THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 36299/03, 14222/04, 15030/04, 36581/04, 1407/05, 2071/05 and 24618/05)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 December 2015

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

In the case of Kovalenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Helena Jäderblom, President,
	Dmitry Dedov,
	Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 November 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in seven applications (nos. 36299/03, 14222/04, 15030/04, 36581/04, 1407/05, 2071/05 and 24618/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eight Russian nationals (“the applicants”). The applicants’ names and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in Appendix I.
2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3.  The applicants complained inter alia of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review in 2003-2007 and their non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement.
4.  On various dates these complaints were communicated to the respondent Government.
THE FACTS
I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5.  The applicants, whose names and years of birth are tabulated in Appendix I, took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled, becoming entitled to various social benefits.
6.  On various dates the applicants successfully sued the authorities for inflation adjustment of these benefits. The judgments became final.
7.  On various dates the Presidia of Regional Courts allowed the defendant authorities’ applications for supervisory review and quashed the judgments, considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law.
8.  Some of the judgments remained unenforced until the date of their quashing or were enforced with delay.
II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
9.  The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure from 2003 is summed up in the Court’s judgment in the case of Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
THE LAW
I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
10.  Given that these seven applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment (see Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 14290/03 et al., § 15, 14 January 2010).
II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR
11.  All applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review. They further complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same facts. The Court will consider all the cases in the light of both provisions, which insofar as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
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 ...”
A.  Admissibility
12.  The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
13.  The Government argued that the supervisory review proceedings resulting in the quashing of the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour were lawful: they were initiated by the defendant authorities within the time-limits provided for by domestic law. The regional courts quashed lower courts’ judgments based on the wrong application of substantive law, thus correcting flagrant injustice and erasing dangerous precedents.
14.  The applicants reiterated their complaints.
15.  The Court recalls that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of Civil Procedure as in force at the material time (see Kot, cited above, § 29). Some of these violations were found in similar and, on certain occasions, virtually identical circumstances concerning quashing of final domestic judgments awarding benefits to the former participants in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site (see, amongst many other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005; Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, 8 October 2009; and Davletkhanov and other “Chernobyl pensioners” v. Russia, nos. 7182/03 et al, 23 September 2010).
16.  Turning to the present cases, the Court observes that the domestic judgments were set aside by way of a supervisory review solely on the ground that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law. The Court reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party’s disagreement with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant’s claim (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 30, 7 June 2007, and Kot, cited above, § 29). The Government did not put forward any argument which would enable the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.
17.  The Court accordingly concludes that the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review amounts to a breach of the principle of legal certainty in violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF NON‑ENFORCEMENT OR DELAYED ENFORCEMENT
18.  Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, both cited above, the applicants further complained about non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement in certain cases of the same judgments prior to their quashing (Appendix I) and/or in other cases of other judgments delivered in their favour (Appendix II).
19.  The Court reiterates that the principles insisting that a final judicial decision must not be called into question and should be enforced represent two aspects of the same general concept, namely the right to a court. Having regard to its finding of violations of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the judgments in supervisory-review proceedings, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the issue of their subsequent non-enforcement by the authorities (see Kulkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 25114/03 et al., § 35, 8 January 2009, with further references). Therefore, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the issue of non-enforcement in the case of Danilov (judgment of 10 June 2003, upheld on 23 June 2003 and quashed on 14 May 2004), in which the judgment in the applicant’s favour was quashed within less than a year after it became binding and enforceable.
20.  The Court considers that the situation is different in respect of the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments prior to their quashing in supervisory-review proceedings in other cases. Indeed, the judgments in the applicants’ favour in the cases of Danilov (judgment of 13 August 2002), Khlabystin (judgment of 24 June 2004) and Golovin (judgment of 6 May 2003) remained binding and enforceable for longer periods of time but the authorities failed to abide by their terms. The applicants’ complaints in this respect thus call for a separate examination (see Kulkov and Others, cited above, § 36).
A.  Admissibility
21.  In some cases the Government alleged that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under domestic law. They notably referred to Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowing complaining about the authorities’ negligence and to Chapter 59 of Civil Code opening a way to claim non‑pecuniary damage. They further submitted that in some cases the delay in execution was less than one year, such delay was found by the Court to be consistent with the reasonable-time requirement (see Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004, and Inozemtsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 874/03, 31 August 2006).
22.  The applicants maintained their claims. They pointed out that the judgments should have been executed immediately and that they had not been at fault as regards the delayed execution of the court awards.
23.  As regards exhaustion, the Court has already found that the suggested remedies were ineffective (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 103 and 106-16, 15 January 2009, and Moroko v. Russia, no. 20937/07, §§ 25-30, 12 June 2008).
24.  As regards delays in execution, the Court observes that in the Kovalenko case the judgment of 22 July 2002, upheld on 2 August 2002, remained unexecuted for six months and twenty six days. Having regard to its case-law, the Court agrees with the Government that this delay does not appear to be unreasonable (see Zasurtsev v. Russia, no. 67051/01, § 59, 27 April 2006, with further references). It further notes that in the case of Ivanov and Petrushin the judgment of 29 September 2004, upheld on 15 October 2004, was enforced within ten months and another judgment in the Kovalenko case (judgment of 11 July 2002, upheld on 22 July 2002) was enforced within ten months and twenty six days. The Court considers such periods of the enforcement to be reasonable and well within the standards set in its established case-law (see Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 et al., § 169, 1 July 2014; Belotserkovets v. Russia, no. 34679/03, § 16, 3 July 2008; and Portnova v. Russia, no. 34428/04, § 15, 29 April 2008, with further references). Consequently, these complaints should be declared inadmissible.
25.  As regards other domestic judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour in the present seven cases, the Court observes that they remained unexecuted for more than one year (see Kozodoyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 2701/04 et al., § 11, 15 January 2009). The Court considers that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
26.  The Government submitted that in some cases the delays in execution of the judgments in the applicants’ favour exceeded one year and in principle could be said to be incompatible with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention. However, they argued that in the cases of Chernykhov, Danilov and Golovin, the relevant judgments could not be executed on account of their quashing by way of supervisory review procedure. As regards the Khlabystin case, they indicated that the delays were attributable to the applicant since he failed to submit the enforcement documents to an appropriate institution.
27.  The applicants maintained their claims.
28.  The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a final and binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III).
29.  Turning to the present cases, the Court observes that in the cases of Kovalenko (judgment of 28 June 2002, upheld on 11 July 2002) and Chernykhov, the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour had never been enforced. In other cases, the domestic judgments, except one judgment in the Danilov case (see paragraph 19 above) and those declared inadmissible in the Kovalenko and Ivanov and Petrushin cases (see paragraph 24 above) were enforced within the periods longer than one year (see for more details the Appendix I and II). Having regard to its case-law, the Court finds that such delays were incompatible with the reasonable time requirement (see, among others, Kozodoyev and Others, cited above, § 11).
30.  As regards the Government’s arguments referred to above, the Court reiterates its established case-law that neither the subsequent quashing of final and enforceable domestic judgments nor the applicant’s alleged failure to submit the enforcement documents to the appropriate institution constitute a valid reason for the prolonged non-enforcement of these judgments (see Velskaya v. Russia, no. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006, and Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, §§ 21-23, 12 June 2008). It sees no reasons to hold otherwise in the present cases.
31.  There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present seven cases.
IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
32.  Lastly, all applicants in addition complained under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention about other different violations, such as the length of proceedings, lack of an effective domestic remedy against non‑enforcement and/or quashing.
33.  In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that they are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
34.  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.”
A.  Damage
35.  The Court notes at the outset that in the cases of Chernykhov and Ivanov and Petrushin the applicants submitted no claims for just satisfaction. Consequently, the Court makes no award in these two cases.
36.  As regards other applicants, they submitted, as far as their admissible complaints are concerned, claims in respect of pecuniary and/or non‑pecuniary damage ranging from 4,000 euros (EUR) to EUR 12,000 together with their calculations based on various adjustment rates.
37.  The Government disputed the applicants’ methods of calculation as regards pecuniary damage, without however suggesting any alternative. They considered that the sums claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage were excessive and unreasonable.
38.  The Court reiterates that a judgment in which it finds a breach of the Convention imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 32, ECHR 2000‑XI).
39.  The Court notes that in the present cases it has found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of quashing of domestic final judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour and their lengthy non‑enforcement as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the interference with the applicants’ property rights resulting from such quashing and non-enforcement. Among the matters which the Court takes into account when assessing compensation are pecuniary damage, that is, the loss actually suffered as a direct result of the alleged violation, and non‑pecuniary damage, that is, the reparation for the anxiety, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the violation, and other non‑pecuniary loss (see, among many other authorities, Ernestina Zullo v. Italy, no. 64897/01, § 25, 10 November 2004).
40.  The Court further notes that the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damage are not only limited to the judgment debts due to them under the domestic judgments but also concern other losses they allegedly sustained in connection with quashing or lengthy non-enforcement of those judgments. The Court, in principle, accepts that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 35, 29 September 2005, with further references). However, it observes that the applicants presented different evaluation and methods of calculation of those losses.
41.  The Court reiterates that its role, as an international judicial authority, is not to compensate applicants’ losses minutely and exhaustively (see Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 4563/07 et al., § 21, 17 December 2009, and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 et al., §§ 29 and 31, 25 October 2011). Unlike in national jurisdictions, the emphasis of the Court’s activity is on passing public judgments that set human rights standards across Europe. The Court cannot emphasize enough that it is not a court of first instance; it does not have the capacity, nor is it appropriate to its function as an international court, to adjudicate on large number of cases which require the finding of basic facts or the calculation of monetary compensation – both of which should, as a matter of principle and effective practice, be the domain of domestic jurisdictions (Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 et al., § 69, ECHR 2010).
42.  The Court notes that the present cases are similar to numerous other Russian cases that concern the same issues it has already addressed in numerous other judgments finding violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of final judgments by way of the supervisory review procedure and non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions. In cases involving many similarly situated victims a unified approach may be called for. This approach will ensure that the applicants remain aggregated and that no disparity in the level of the awards will have a divisive effect on them (see, for instance, Moskalenko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 1270/12 et al., § 23, 18 July 2013, and Goncharova and Others and 68 other “Privileged Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 23113/08 et al., §§ 22‑24, 15 October 2009).
43.  In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000‑IV).
44.  In these circumstances and having regard to the principles developed in its case-law on determination of compensation in similar cases, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award Mr Kovalenko, Mr Danilov, Mr Khlabystin, Mr Rybalka and Mr Golovin a total of EUR 5,000 to cover all heads of damage.
B.  Costs and expenses
45.  The applicants in the cases of Kovalenko, Rybalka, Danilov and Khlabystin claimed the amounts of 2,094.25 Russian roubles (RUB), RUB 3,000, RUB 410 and RUB 2,645.55, respectively, for costs and expenses.
46.  The Government did not contest these claims.
47.  Having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court decides to grant the applicants’ claims.
C.  Default interest
48.  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, in respect of all applications, the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning quashing by way of supervisory review and non-enforcement of domestic final judgments in the applicants’ favour, except of the judgments of 22 July 2002, upheld on 2 August 2002, and of 11 July 2002, upheld on 22 July 2002, in the Kovalenko case and of the judgment of 29 September 2004, upheld on 15 October 2004, in the Ivanov and Petrushin case, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3.  Holds in respect of all applicants, that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review proceedings;

4.  Holds in respect of all applicants, except in the Danilov case (judgment of 10 June 2003, upheld on 23 June 2003 and quashed on 14 May 2004), that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non‑execution or delayed execution of the judgments in the applicants’ favour;

5.  Holds in respect of the Danilov case, that there is no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint relating to non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 June 2003, upheld on 23 June 2003 and quashed on 14 May 2004;

6.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts:
(i)  in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) each to Kovalenko Nikolay Aleksandrovich, Danilov Viktor Aleksandrovich, Khlabystin Aleksandr Veniaminovich, Rybalka Viktor Andreyevich and Golovin Aleksandr Vladimirovich, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(ii)  in respect of costs and expenses:
RUB 2,094 (two thousand and ninety-four Russian roubles) to Kovalenko Nikolay Aleksandrovich;
RUB 3,000 (three thousand Russian roubles) to Rybalka Viktor Andreyevich;
RUB 410 (four hundred and ten Russian roubles) to Danilov Viktor Aleksandrovich;
RUB 2,646 (two thousand six hundred and forty-six Russian roubles) to Khlabystin Aleksandr Veniaminovich;
(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;

7.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 December 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Marialena Tsirli	Helena Jäderblom
	Deputy Registrar	President

APPENDIX I

No.	Application
no.
and date of lodging	Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
	Final domestic judgment	Award(s)	Quashing	Length of non-enforcement prior to the quashing (separate complaint)	
1.		36299/03
07/10/2003
	Nikolay Aleksandrovich KOVALENKO
06/10/1961
Pskov
Russian
	1) Justice of Peace of 29th Court Circuit of Pskov
10/06/2003
21/06/2003

2) Pskov Town Court of Pskov Region
31/07/2003
21/08/2003
	1) RUB 30,000 (penalty for arrears)

2) RUB 3,000 (penalty for the delay in the enforcement in respect of the monthly payments)
	1) Presidium of Pskov Regional Court
16/01/2004

2) Presidium of Pskov Regional Court
14/05/2004
		
2.		14222/04
17/03/2004
	Aleksandr Petrovich CHERNYKHOV
unknown
Shakhty
Russian
	Shakhty Town Court of Rostov Region
21/08/2003
01/09/2003
	RUB 49,914.9 (lump sum for social benefit arrears) + RUB 6,114 (monthly payments of social benefits)
	Presidium of Rostov Regional Court
17/06/2004
		
3.		15030/04
17/03/2004
	Viktor Andreyevich RYBALKA
13/11/1942
Rostov
Russian
	Zernograd Town Court of Rostov Region
08/10/2002
27/11/2002

	RUB 92,023.91 (lump sum for social benefit arrears)
	Presidium of Rostov Regional Court
04/12/2003

4.		36581/04
16/09/2004
	Viktor Aleksandrovich DANILOV
28/08/1949
Pskov
Russian
	1) Pskov City Court
13/08/2002
24/09/2002

2) Justice of Peace of 29th Court Circuit of Pskov
10/06/2003
23/06/2003
	1) RUB 8,445 (lump sum for social benefit arrears) + RUB 4,540.52 (monthly payments of social benefits) + RUB 544.80 (food allowance)

2) RUB 10,000 (penalty for arrears)	1) Presidium of Pskov Regional Court
24/05/2004
(the judgment was quashed in part of monthly payments)

2) Presidium of Pskov Regional Court
14/05/2004
	1) 49 months and 6 days

2) 10 months and 21 days	
5.		1407/05
23/11/2004
	Petr Ivanovich IVANOV
06/09/1944
Velikiye Luki
Russian

Viktor Alekseyevich PETRUSHIN
29/01/1946
Velikiye Luki
Russian

Denis Yevgenyevich KOZYREV
	Velikiye Luki City Court
31/10/2003
10/11/2003
	RUB 35,000 (penalty for arrears)
	Presidium of Pskov Regional Court
08/04/02005		
6.		2071/05
03/12/2004
	Aleksandr Veniaminovich KHLABYSTIN
18/02/1962
Chelyabinsk
Russian
	Chelyabinsk Regional Court
24/06/2004

	RUB 500 (penalty for arrears)	Presidium of Chelyabinsk Regional Court
05/04/2006	21 months and 9 days	
7.		24618/05
14/05/2005
	Aleksandr Vladimirovich GOLOVIN
26/03/1957
Kirov
Russian
	Leninskiy District Court
04/02/2003 and 04/03/2003,
as amended on 06/05/2003
	RUB 558.25 (relative average monthly salary)
	Presidium of Kirov Regional Court
27/04/2005	23 months and 21 days	

APPENDIX II

No.	Application
no. 
and date of lodging	Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
	Final domestic judgment	Award(s)	Enforcement status 	Length of non-enforcement	
1.	36299/03
07/10/2003
	Nikolay Aleksandrovich KOVALENKO
06/10/1961
Pskov
Russian
	1) Town Court of Pskov Region
28/06/2002
11/07/2002

2) Town Court of Pskov Region
11/07/2002
22/07/2002

3) Town Court of Pskov Region
22/07/2002
02/08/2002
	1) RUB 2,000 (non-pecuniary damages).

2) RUB 21,657.84 (lump sum)+RUB 188,104.88 (lump sum)+RUB 30,000 (lump sum)

3) RUB 40,802.44 (lump sum for arrears)	1) Remained unenforced

2) Fully enforced on 18/06/2003
As a result of indexation additionally RUB 31,431.97 was paid

3) Fully enforced on 28/02/2003	

2) 10 months and 26 days

3) 6 months and 26 days	
2.	14222/04
17/03/2004
	Aleksandr Petrovich CHERNYKHOV
unknown
Shakhty
Russian
	Shakhty Town Court of Rostov Region
27/04/2004
18/05/2004

	RUB 7,092 (monthly payments of social benefits)	Remained unenforced		
3.	15030/04
17/03/2004
	Viktor Andreyevich RYBALKA
13/11/1942
Rostov
Russian
	1) Zernograd Town Court of Rostov Region
22/10/1998
23/12/1998

2) Zernograd Town Court of Rostov Region
20/04/2000
03/05/2000
	1) RUB 27,086.75 (lump sum for social benefit arrears)+RUB 1,480.34 (monthly payments of social benefits)

2) RUB 2,775.60 (lump sum for social benefit arrears)+RUB 1,665.38 (monthly payments of social benefits))	1) Fully enforced (lump sum RUB 29,862.35 was paid on 01/04/2002)

2) Fully enforced (lump sum RUB 4,943.95 was paid on 28/06/2002)	1) 39 months and 8 days

2) 25 months and 25 days
	
4.	1407/05
23/11/2004
	Petr Ivanovich IVANOV
06/09/1944
Velikiye Luki
Russian

Viktor Alekseyevich PETRUSHIN
29/01/1946
Velikiye Luki
Russian
	Velikiye Luki City Court
14/05/2004
24/05/2004

Velikiye Luki City Court
29 (30)/09/ 2004
15/10/2004	RUB 326,074.83 (lump sum for arrears) + RUB 9,137.59 (monthly payments of social benefits)

RUB 232,473.99 (lump sum for arrears) + RUB 5,156.92 (monthly payments of social benefits).	Fully enforced in July-August 2005

Fully enforced in July-August 2005
	14 months

10 months	
5.	2071/05
03/12/2004
	Aleksandr Veniaminovich KHLABYSTIN
18/02/1962
Chelyabinsk
Russian
	Central District Court Chelyabinsk 19/04/2004
12/08/2004

	RUB 823.82 (lump sum for compensation) + RUB 1,997.35 (monthly payments of social benefits) + RUB 707.13 (food allowance)

	Fully enforced in March 2009

	55 months