BICHENOK v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković
The applicant, Ms Pelageya Ivanovna Bichenok, is a Russian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Orel. 1. 2. The applicant is a former employee of a municipal unitary enterprise, the Town Housing and Maintenance Company (“МУП Городское Производственное Предприятие Жилищно-Коммунального Хозяйства” (“the company”) of Mirnyy, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya). 3. The company was set up by a decision of the administration of the town of Mirnyy (“the town administration”) and provided housing and communal services in the town. The company had “the right of economic control (“право хозяйственного ведения”) over the assets allocated to it by the town administration in order to carry out its statutory activities. 4. On an unspecified date the company was declared insolvent, and insolvency proceedings commenced. A liquidation commission was accordingly set up. 5. At some point the applicant was dismissed from the company. She challenged her dismissal in court and claimed salary arrears in two rounds of court proceedings. 6. On 14 February 2001 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic granted the applicant’s claim in part. The court found that the applicant’s dismissal had been unlawful, ordered the liquidation commission to change the date of the dismissal to the date of the judgment, to modify the grounds for the dismissal and to pay the applicant 121,767.95 Russian roubles (RUB) in salary arrears. On 26 March 2001 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) and entered into force. 7. On 12 April 2001 the same court awarded the applicant RUB 44,052.36 against the company in respect of salary arrears. It appears that the judgment entered into force ten days later. 8. The applicant received the writs of execution in respect of the judgments and sent them to the town bailiffs’ service on 12 March and 15 May 2001 respectively. On the same dates the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of each of the writs. 9. On 17 July 2001 the Commercial Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) discontinued the insolvency proceedings and ordered the respondent company’s liquidation. The creditors’ claims, which had not been satisfied during the insolvency proceedings, including the remainder of the applicant’s claims, were considered as settled. On 30 October 2001 the liquidation was recorded in the Register of Legal Entities, and the company ceased to exist. 10. It appears that the judgments in the applicant’s favour have not been enforced. 11. On 19 June 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the bailiffs’ service, alleging that it had been inactive and had failed to assist her in the enforcement of the judgments in her favour. 12. On 4 February 2002 the bailiffs’ service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because of the company’s liquidation. 13. By a final judgment of 5 June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court held that the bailiffs had taken measures to ensure enforcement of the judicial awards in her favour until the company’s liquidation on 17 July 2001. However, the bailiffs had been manifestly unable to obtain enforcement of the awards after the company had ceased to exist. Therefore, the court concluded that the decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings had been lawful. 14. For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning municipal unitary enterprises see, in so far as relevant, Samsonov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 2880/10, §§ 15-44, 9 October 2014); Yershova v. Russia (no. 1387/04, §§ 35-43, 8 April 2010); and Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia (nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 54-127, 9 October 2014).