KUZHELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 64098/09 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Third Section) [2019] ECHR 731 (15 October 2019)

KUZHELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 64098/09 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Third Section) [2019] ECHR 731 (15 October 2019)

The FGUP did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State at the relevant time; the State exercised strong control and is responsible under the Convention for the judgment debts and employment violations. The applicants' rights were not adequately restored domestically, and the delay in enforcement was not justified.

Citation
[2019] ECHR 731
Parties
Applicants: Kuzhelev and Others; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
15 October 2019
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation found
Legal Topics
Non Enforcement of Judgments, State Liability, Employment Reinstatement, Compensation for Delayed Payments, Legal Succession, Invalidity of Transactions
Human Rights Labour Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Non Enforcement of Judgments State Liability Employment Reinstatement Compensation for Delayed Payments +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kuzhelev and Others

Applicants

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State is responsible for non-enforcement of judgments against a State unitary enterprise
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' employment rights were violated by unlawful transfer and dismissal
  3. 3 Whether compensation for delayed payments and index-linking was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The FGUP did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State at the relevant time; the State exercised strong control and is responsible under the Convention for the judgment debts and employment violations. The applicants' rights were not adequately restored domestically, and the delay in enforcement was not justified.

Court Disposition

Violation found

Orders

  • State held responsible for non-enforcement of judgments against FGUP
  • Applicants entitled to compensation for delayed enforcement and employment violations