CASE OF KALUGINA v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)
Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova
4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Petrozavodsk, in the Republic of Kareliya. She was a municipal unitary enterprise employee in Petrozavodsk, working for Auto Transport Column 1126 (“Avtokolonna 1126”, hereafter “the company”). 5. Avtokolonna 1126 was set up in accordance with a decision of the administration of the town of Petrozavodsk (“the town administration”), and provided public transport services in the town on a commercial basis. In order to carry out its statutory activities, the company had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it by the town administration (see Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 55-75, 9 October 2014 for further details on the company’s status). In accordance with several agreements between the company and the town administration, the company undertook to provide certain sections of the population with transport services free of charge, and the town administration was to reimburse it for the expenses incurred out of the budget allocated for that purpose by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kareliya or the federal budget. A letter from the town administration to the applicant dated 19 March 2003 shows that at some point, owing to the relevant budgets lacking funds, the company was owed a significant amount of money. Consequently, it was unable to pay its employees on time. In 2004 the town administration asked the legislative body of the Republic of Kareliya to consider allocating additional funds to cover the company’s debt, but to no avail. 6. On an unspecified date the town administration ordered the restructuring of the company in the form of a spin-off as a new entity, and transferred the assets mentioned in paragraph 5 above to the newly created municipal unitary enterprise “Avtokolonna 1126 Plus”. The debt which had accumulated in respect of the unpaid salaries was not transferred, and remained with the applicant’s employer. On 6 July 2003 the Commercial Court of the Republic of Kareliya declared the debtor company “Avtokolonna 1126” insolvent, and liquidation proceedings were commenced. 7. On 18 May 2004 the Petrozavodsk Town Court awarded the applicant 21,830 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of salary arrears, default interest and non-pecuniary damage. The judgment became final ten days later. According to a payment note on a writ of execution of 20 July 2006, at some point the company paid the applicant RUB 9,206. The remainder of the judgment debt has remained unpaid. 8. On 10 April 2006 a justice of the peace of the 11th Court Circuit of Petrozavodsk ordered the company to pay the applicant RUB 614 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The award became final ten days later, but was not paid to the applicant. 9. On 4 October 2006 the Commercial Court of the Republic of Kareliya ordered the company’s liquidation. Creditors’ claims which had not been satisfied during the liquidation proceedings, including the applicant’s remaining claims, were considered settled. On 15 October 2006 the liquidation was recorded in the Register of Legal Entities, and the company ceased to exist. 10. On 16 March 2005, in subsidiary liability proceedings, the Petrozavodsk Town Court refused to hold the town administration liable for the company’s debts. The court found that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence to demonstrate that it had caused the company’s insolvency. It appears that the judgment was not appealed against.