16.11.2012
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L HOММЕ
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos 23818/04 and 42665/06
SROO SUTYAZHNIK against Russia
and SROO SUTYAZHNIK against Russia
lodged on 19 May 2004 and 7 October 2006 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant is a non-profit public association SROO Sutyazhnik
("applicant association"). It is represented before the Court by its
president, Mr S. I. Belyayev.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant association,
may be summarised as follows.
1. Events related to re-registration of the applicant association
{application no. 23818/04, lodged on 19 May 2004)
3. The applicant association was registered on 29 August 1994 by the
Sverdlovsk Regional Justice Department of the Ministry of Justice of
the Russian Federation ("Justice Department"). In 1995 a new Federal
Law On non-governmental organisations came into force. The Law
required that all NGOs established before 1995 be re-registered before
1 July 1999. On multiple occasions the applicant association applied
to the Justice Department seeking rc-rcgistration, however, the
applications were unsuccessful.
4. The applicant association brought an action before the commercial
courts against the Justice Department seeking a judicial order to
re-register the association. The decisions in the applicant
association's favour given by the trial and cassation courts were
annulled and the proceedings were discontinued on 26 September
2000 by the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the
Russian Federation. The Presidium ruled that the commercial courts
lacked jurisdiction to consider disputes concerning registration
of non-profit organisations.
2 SROO SUTYAZHNIK (II) v. RUSSIA AND SROOSUTYAZHNIK (III) V.
RUSSIA-STATEMIiN'I' OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS
5. Shortly thereafter the applicant association challenged before the
courts of general jurisdiction the refusal of the Justice Department
to re-register it. On 10 April 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of
Yekaterinburg ruled in favour of the applicant association and ordered
re-registration by the Justice Department.
6. On 17 May 2002 the Government of the Russian Federation issued a
decree, which transferred the management of the register of legal
entities from the Ministry of Justice and its territorial bodies
(justice departments) to the Ministry of Taxation and its territorial
bodies from 1 July 2002.
7. The applicant association on 26 June 2002 submitted the documents
necessary for re-registration to the Justice Department. By the letter
of 24 July 2002 the Justice Department informed the applicant
association that the judgment in its favour could not be enforced
because an appeal against it was pending,
8. On 1 August 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the trial
court's judgment on appeal.
9. On 2 September 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg
issued a writ of execution ordering the Justice Department to
re-register the applicant association.
10. On 5 November 2002 the president of the applicant association, Mr
S. I, Belyayev, forwarded the writ of execution to the Bailiffs'
Service for enforcement. He attached to his letter the new articles of
association of the applicant association and also informed the
bailiffs that the remainder of the documents necessary for
re-registration had been already filed with the Justice Department,
11. On 23 December 2002 the Bailiffs* Service terminated the
enforcement proceedings. It was stated that the Justice Department is
unable 10 comply with the judgment because from 1 July 2002 the
registration of legal entities was entrusted to the Ministry of
Taxation and its territorial bodies. The applicant association was not
informed of this decision.
12. SROO Sutyazhnik was incorporated in the register of legal entities
by the Ministry of Taxation on 19 August 2002 as a legal регson
registered before 1 July 2002.
13. The applicant association unaware of the bailiffs' decision to
terminate the proceedings lodged complaints regarding non-enforcement
of the judgment with the Bailiffs1 Service and the Justice Department
On 23 January 2004 and 28 January 2004 respectively the Justice
Department and the Bailiffs' Service informed SROO Sutyazhnik that the
enforcement proceedings were terminated without enforcement due to
absence of powers to perform re-rcgistration on the side of the
Justice Department.
14. The applicant association lodged an action alleging unlawfulness
of termination of enforcement proceedings by the Bailiffs* Service. On
1 March 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg ruled in
its favour in part and found termination of the proceedings to be
unlawful. The judgment was upheld by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on
10 June 2004.
Upon a number of subsequent requests of SROO Sutyazhnik on 20 October
2004 the Justice Department issued an order to re-register the
applicant association, annul the registration certificate of 1994, and
transfer the file to the Ministry of Taxation for incorporation of the
data into the register of legal entities.
16. On 27 October 2004 the Ministry of Taxation informed the Justice
Department that the applicant association was incorporated in the
register of legal entities on 19 August 2002 and that the Federal Law
On registration of legal entities of 2001 did not allow to insert a
specific re-registration record in the register.
17. On 10 November 2004 the Justice Department informed SROO
Sutyazhnik that it fully enforced the judgment. The applicant
association disagreed and requested issuance of a registration
certificate. The Justice Department on 16 December 2004 replied that
issuance of a re-registration certificate is not possible, because no
relevant record was inserted in the register of legal entities.
18. SROO Sutyazhnik challenged in court the inaction of the Justice
Department concerning issuance of the certificate. On 18 March 2005
the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg ruled against the
applicant association. The District Court reasoned that SROO
Sutyazhnik was effectively re-registered on 19 August 2002, no
inaction of the state bodies could be established, and that the
plaintiff failed to demonstrate that absence of the registration
certificate impeded the daily operation of the association. The
judgment was upheld on 30 August 2005 by the Sverdlovsk Regional
Court.
19. In the meantime, on 11 May 2005 the applicant association
requested and received the certificate of state registration from the
Justice Department.
2. Events related to re-organization of the applicant association
(application no. 42665/06, lodged on 7 October 2006)
20. On 28 February 2003 the general assembly of SROO Sutyazhnik
decided to adopt changes to the articles of association and to
re-organize itself into an international public association, because
its representation was established and registered in the State of New
York.
21. On 19 March 2003 an application was forwarded to the Ministry of
Justice along with supporting documents, including 1994 versions of
the articles of association and the registration certificate>> and the
certificate of 19 August 2002 verifying incorporation of SROO
Sutyazhnik in the register of legal entities.
22. On 29 April 2003 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant
association that the requested changes to the articles of association
and the legal status of association may not be recorded, because it
failed to supply the articles of association and registration
certificate issued after 1 July 1999. Further the letter slated that
the applicant association was due to be liquidated.
23. SROO Sutyazhnik challenged the decision of the Ministry of Justice
in court and sought an order to proceed with registration of an
international public association and incorporation of the relevant
records in the register of legal entities by the territorial body of
the Ministry of Taxation.
24. The relevant subsequent events in 2003-2005 are summarized in S:S:
13-19 above.
25. On 26 December 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow ruled
against the applicant association. The District Court reasoned that
SROO Sutyazhnik at the moment it filed an application with the
Ministry of Justice in 2003 did not have the articles of association
adopted after 1 July 1999 and registration certificate issued after
the same date. Effectively, these documents were available for filing
after 11 May 2005, and thus the Ministry of Justice properly concluded
that (he application for reorganization into an international public
association could not be accepted,
26.On 11 April 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on
appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant association complains under Article 6 S: 1 of the
Convention about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgement ordering its
re-registration.
Further, the applicant association complains under Article 11 in
conjunction with Article 6 S: 1 of the Convention that the lengthy
non-enforcement of the abovemeniioned judgment unduly interfered with
the freedom of association by preventing it from obtaining the status
of a registered association and precluded reorganization into an
international public association.
Also, the applicant association submitted other complaints under
Articles б and 11 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the judgment given in (he applicant associations1 favour been
fully enforced? If yes, what is the date of the full enforcement of
the
judgment?
2. Having regard to the manner in which the judgment to re-register
the SROO Sutyazhnik wag being enforced, has there been an interference
with the applicant association's freedom of association, within the
meaning of Article It S: 1 of the Convention, as regards
гс-registration of SROO Sutyazhnik? If so, was that interference
prescribed by law and necessary in tei-ms of Article И S: 2?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant association's
freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 S: 1 of the
Convention, as regards the attempt to re-organize SROO Sutyazhnik into
an international public association? If so, was that interference
prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 S: 2?
4. In the circumstances of the case, did the actions of the national
authorities regarding re-registration and re-organization of SROO
Sutyazhnik comply with the requirements of Article 6 S: 1 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention?
5. Having regard to the manner in which the judgment to reregister the
applicant association was being enforced, can it be said that the
applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning
of Article 35 S: 3(b) of the Convention?
Добавить комментарий: