THIRD SECTION

CASE OF OOO GELENDZHIK-SNAB v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 48990/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 April 2026

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

In the case of OOO Gelendzhik-Snab v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

• PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 July 2013.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr R.A. Zarbeyev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

• THE FACTS

4.  The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a final domestic judicial decision given against a federal State unitary enterprise (FGUP) and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

• THE LAW
  1.         Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

2.       ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a final domestic judicial decision given in its favour against a federal State unitary enterprise. The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

8.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).

9.  In the leading case of Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, 9 October 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. In particular, the Court finds that the present case is similar to Liseytseva and Maslov (cited above, §§ 208-14) from the standpoint of the debtor federal State unitary enterprise’s functions and the degree of actual control exercised by the authorities over its activities (see further Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, §§ 93-94, 15 October 2019). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the debtor federal State unitary enterprise did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State. Accordingly, the State is to be held responsible under the Convention for the debts owned by the debtor unitary enterprise to the applicant company under the final judgment in its favour. The authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the final judicial decision in the applicant company’s favour.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

3.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  The applicant company complained, in substance, that it did not have an effective remedy in respect of its non-enforcement complaint. This aspect of the case was communicated to the Government under Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 8-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on this complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Belev and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 16354/02 and 40 others, § 100, 2 April 2009; and OOO Truzhenik-89 and OOO Firma Moaz v. Russia [Committee], nos. 34336/10 and 30108/13, § 25, 8 March 2022).

4.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Voronkov v. Russia, no. 39678/03, §§ 68-69, 30 July 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

14.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment which remains enforceable.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2.      Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
3.      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement of the final judgment in the applicant company’s favour given against the federal State unitary enterprise (see appended table);
4.      Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic judicial decision referred to in the appended table;
5.      Holds
   1.   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
   2.   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and
lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.