EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SHESTOPALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 39866/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 17.XI.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set
out in Article 44 з 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Shestopalova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr K. Hajiyev, judges
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 October 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 27295/03) against
the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms ("the Convention") by thirty-eight Russian nationals
listed in appendix 1 on 23 September 2002. The applicants were
represented by Mr V. Tarnarutskiy, a lawyer practising in
Voronezh.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 8 March 2004 the Court decided to communicate the
complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the
applicants' favour to the Government. Under the provisions of
Article 29 з 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits
of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
4. The applicants are residents of Voronezh.
5. They are in receipt of welfare payments for their children.
In 1999 - 2002 the applicants brought separate sets of civil
proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in
those payments.
6. On the dates set out in appendix 1 the domestic courts
granted the applicants' claims and ordered the welfare authority
to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings
were commenced accordingly.
7. Subsequently the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement
proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants' favour
and returned the writs of execution to them referring to the lack
of the debtor's funds.
8. In 2001 - 2002 the applicants brought several sets of civil
proceedings against private banks in Voronezh in which the
defendant authority had its accounts, claiming the recovery of the
awarded amounts. The domestic courts rejected those claims as
unfounded.
9. In June 2004 the applicants were paid the amounts due
pursuant to the writs of execution.
II. Relevant domestic law
10. Section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of
21 July 1997 provides that a bailiff's order on the institution of
enforcement proceedings must fix a time-limit for the defendant's
voluntary compliance with a writ of execution. The time-limit may
not exceed five days. The bailiff must also warn the defendant
that coercive action will follow, should the defendant fail to
comply with the time-limit.
11. Under Section 13 of the Law, the enforcement proceedings
should be completed within two months of the receipt of the writ
of enforcement by the bailiff.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocl No. 1 to the Convention
12. The applicants complained that the prolonged non-
enforcement of the judgments in their favour violated their "right
to court" under Article 6 з 1 and their right to the peaceful
enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles, in so far as relevant,
read as follows:
Article 6 з 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...,
everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]...
tribunal..."
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair
the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to
control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions
or penalties."
A. Admissibility
13. The Government informed the Court that the authorities of
the Voronezh Region had attempted to secure a friendly settlement
of the case and that the applicants had refused to accept the
friendly settlement on the terms proposed by the authorities. By
reference to this refusal and to the fact that, in any event, the
judgments in the applicants' favour had been enforced, the
Government invited the Court to strike out the application, in
accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
14. The applicants disagreed with the Government's arguments
and maintained their complaints. As regards the friendly
settlement proposal, the applicants claimed that the offer which
the authorities of the Voronezh Region had made to them had been
unacceptable and that the authorities had refused to reach the
friendly settlement on the applicants' terms.
15. The Court firstly observes that the parties were unable to
agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. The Court
recalls that under certain circumstances an application may indeed
be struck out of its list of cases under Article 37 з 1 (c) of the
Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the
respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination
of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], No.
26307/95, з 76, ECHR 2003-...).
16. On the facts, the Court observes that the Government failed
to submit with the Court any formal statement capable of falling
into that category and offering a sufficient basis for finding
that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does
not require the Court to continue its examination of the case
(see, by contrast, to Akman v. Turkey (striking out), No.
37453/97, зз 23 - 24, ECHR 2001-VI).
17. As regards the Government's argument that the judgments in
question have already been enforced, the Court considers that the
mere fact that the authorities complied with the judgments after a
substantial delay cannot be viewed in this case as automatically
depriving the applicants of their victim status under the
Convention (see, e.g., Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, з 16, 24
February 2005).
18. In the light of the above considerations, the Court rejects
the Government's request to strike the application out under
Article 37 of the Convention.
19. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
20. The Government advanced no arguments on the merits of the
application.
21. The applicants maintained their complaint.
22. The Court observes that the judgments in the applicants'
favour remained inoperative for several years. No justification
was advanced by the Government for the respective delays.
23. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 з 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising
issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among other
authorities, Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and,
more recently, Petrushko, cited above, or Poznakhirina v. Russia,
No. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).
24. Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court
notes that the Government did not put forward any fact or argument
capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the
present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the
Court finds that by failing for years to comply with the
enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour the domestic
authorities prevented them from receiving the money they could
reasonably have expected to receive.
25. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з 1 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
26. The applicants also complained that they were denied
effective remedies under Article 13 of the Convention in that the
domestic courts dismissed their property claims against the
private banks of Voronezh. This Article provides as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the]
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a
national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
27. The Court observes that the applicants complained in
essence about the unsuccessful outcome of the court proceedings
against the banks. It recalls in this connection that the
effectiveness of a remedy for the purposes of Article 13 of the
Convention does not depend on the certainty of a favourable
outcome for the applicant (see Swedish Engine Drivers' Union v.
Sweden, judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A No. 20, p. 18, з
50). On the basis of the materials submitted by the applicants,
the Court notes that they were able to avail themselves of a
remedy under national law, namely instituted the civil proceedings
against the banks. Moreover, the applicants were able to present
their arguments as they wished, and the judicial authorities gave
those arguments due consideration. The fact that the applicants'
claims were rejected does not indicate that the remedy in question
was ineffective in the circumstances of the present case.
28. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 зз 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
29. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the
Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of
the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial
reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just
satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
30. The applicants did not specify the amounts they sought to
obtain for pecuniary damage, but requested the Court to adjust
their judgment debts by the inflation coefficient of 136%. They
submitted a certificate of the Department of Statistics of the
Voronezh Region which represented the inflation rate in the period
between January 1995 and June 2004. The applicants also claimed
each 12,000 euros (EUR) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
31. The Government contested the applicants' claims as
excessive and unjustified. The Government considered that should
the Court find a violation in this case that would in itself
constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
32. The Court finds that some pecuniary loss must have been
occasioned by reason of the period that elapsed from the time
between the entry into force of the judgments in question and
their subsequent enforcement (see, e.g., Poznakhirina, cited
above, з 34 and Makarova and others v. Russia, No. 7023/03, 24
February 2005, з 38). Having regard to the calculations presented
by the applicants, the inflation rates in Russia during the
relevant period and given that that the Government did not
dispute, as such, the method of calculation employed by the
applicants, the Court accepts the applicants' claims in respect of
pecuniary damage and awards them the respective amounts as
indicated in appendix 2.
33. As regards the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the
Court would not exclude that the applicants might have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce the judgments in their favour. However, having
regard to the nature of the breach in this case and making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considers that the
finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the
applicants (see, in a similar context, Poznakhirina, cited above,
з 35).
B. Costs and expenses
34. The applicants also claimed each 10% of their judgment
debts for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, and
notably in respect of legal fees paid to Mr Tarnarutskiy. The
latter submitted a certificate in which he confirmed that the
applicants incurred the costs alleged.
35. The Government considered that the documents submitted by
the applicants did not indicate that the applicants had incurred
any costs.
36. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled
to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it
has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the
above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the
applicants a total sum of EUR 500 covering costs in the domestic
proceedings and for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax
that may be chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
37. The Court considers it appropriate that the default
interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage
points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the
judgments in the applicants' favour admissible and the remainder
of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 з 2 of the Convention:
(i) the respective amounts set out in appendix 2 in respect of
pecuniary damage;
(ii) a total sum of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) in respect of
costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of
the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months
until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
4. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself
sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage
sustained by the applicants;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 November 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
Santiago QUESADA
Deputy Registrar
Appendix 1
----------------------------T-------------------------T----------¬
¦ NAME OF APPLICANT ¦ FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE ¦ AWARDED ¦
¦ ¦ ENFORCED ¦ AMOUNT ¦
¦ ¦ Date/Decision body ¦ (RUR) ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦1. Nina Alekseyevna ¦29 May 2000 / ¦ 2,028.92¦
¦ Shestopalova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦2. Anastasiya Petrovna ¦30 November 2000 / ¦ 2,353.19¦
¦ Barkova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦3. Aleksandra Ivanovna ¦28 March 2000 / ¦ 4,540.70¦
¦ Basova ¦the Kominternovskiy ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦4. Valentina Mikhaylovna ¦29 September 2000 / ¦ 2,218.76¦
¦ Bokova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦5. Lyudmila Vasilyevna ¦3 December 1999 / ¦ 3,397.14¦
¦ Borisova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦6. Valentina Aleksandrovna ¦4 January 2000 / ¦ 3,324.50¦
¦ Bykovskaya ¦the Tsentralny District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦7. Nelya Vasilyevna ¦13 October 2000 / ¦ 2,160.7 ¦
¦ Voroshilina ¦the Sovetskiy District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦8. Olga Ivanovna Vysotskaya¦8 February 2000 / ¦ 4,089.03¦
¦ ¦the Zheleznodorozhny ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh; 25 May ¦ ¦
¦ ¦2000 / the Levoberezhny ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦9. Zinaida Petrovna ¦20 December 1999 / ¦ 9,774.52¦
¦ Goncharova ¦the Tsentralny District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦10. Svetlana Mikhaylovna ¦2 December 1999 / ¦ 3,927.84¦
¦ Zagorskaya ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦11. Valentina Vasilyevna ¦28 February 2001 / ¦ 4,761.12¦
¦ Klepikova ¦the Leninskiy District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦12. Nina Timofeyevna ¦21 July 2000 / ¦ 1,999.07¦
¦ Kozyavkina ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦13. Tatyana Alekseyevna ¦21 January 2000 / ¦ 8,467.52¦
¦ Kolyukayeva ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦14. Tatyana Ivanovna Ksenz ¦18 February 1999 / ¦ 3,959.26¦
¦ ¦the Zheleznodorozhny ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh; 24 November ¦ ¦
¦ ¦2000/the Levoberezhny ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦15. Nina Semenovna Kuimova ¦14 April 2000 / ¦ 1,533.54¦
¦ ¦the Zheleznodorozhny ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦16. Lyudmila Ivanovna ¦19 January 2000 / ¦ 8,337.08¦
¦ Kudryavtseva ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦17. Irina Nikolayevna ¦11 October 2000 / ¦ 2,311.36¦
¦ Lavrentyeva ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦18. Valentina Mikhaylovna ¦25 February and 13 ¦ 4,220.19¦
¦ Lipovtseva ¦October 2000 / ¦ ¦
¦ ¦the Zheleznodorozhny ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦19. Mariya Fedorovna ¦29 June 2000 / ¦ 2,061.08¦
¦ Minakova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦20. Yelena Tikhonovna ¦19 January 2000 / ¦ 8,663.29¦
¦ Moshurova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦21. Vera Konstantinovna ¦19 January 2000 / ¦ 8,337.08¦
¦ Myasoyedova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦22. Lyubov Mikhaylovna ¦6 December 1999 / ¦ 10,289.10¦
¦ Nebolsina ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦23. Marina Leonidovna ¦20 April 2000 / ¦ 9,257 ¦
¦ Panina ¦the Tsentralny District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦24. Valentina Ivanovna ¦26 July 2002 / ¦ 5,906.2 ¦
¦ Popova ¦the Justice of Peace of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦the Tsentralny District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦25. Nina Ivanovna Ryabova ¦29 December 1999 and 22 ¦ 2,667.89¦
¦ ¦February 2000 / ¦ ¦
¦ ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦26. Valentina Yegorovna ¦28 January 2000 / ¦ 1,994.96¦
¦ Sinelnikova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦27. Lyubov Germanovna ¦20 December 1999 / ¦ 11,887.26¦
¦ Skopintseva ¦the Tsentralny District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦28. Valentina Mikhaylovna ¦7 March 2000 / ¦ 2,163.17¦
¦ Slepokurova ¦the Kominternovskiy ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦29. Natalya Aleksandrovna ¦18 February 1999 / ¦ 1,597.05¦
¦ Spakhova ¦the Zheleznodorozhny ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦30. Yevgeniya Aleksandrovna¦7 March 2000 and 26 June ¦ 5,973.36¦
¦ Starykh ¦2001/the Sovetskiy ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦31. Valentina Alekseyevna ¦9 October 2000 / ¦ 4,417.48¦
¦ Stolpovskaya ¦the Zheleznodorozhny ¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦32. Tatyana Pavlovna ¦20 December 1999 / ¦ 7,154.54¦
¦ Tomilina ¦the Tsentralny District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦33. Yelena Viktorovna ¦22 February 2000 / ¦ 3,944.5 ¦
¦ Trofimova ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦34. Valentina Nikolayevna ¦19 January and 30 March ¦ 3,910.05¦
¦ Urazova ¦2001/the Zheleznodorozhny¦ ¦
¦ ¦District Court of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦35. Irina Viktorovna ¦19 January 2000 / ¦ 8,663.29¦
¦ Tsunenko ¦the Levoberezhny District¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦36. Galina Ivanovna ¦15 March 2000 / ¦ 1,985.18¦
¦ Shamayeva ¦the Tsentralny District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦37. Tatyana Mitrofanovna ¦22 December 1999 / ¦ 1,830.65¦
¦ Sheremetyeva ¦the Sovetskiy District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
¦38. Nina Vasilyevna Yarkina¦13 November 2000 / ¦ 4,464.52¦
¦ ¦the Sovetskiy District ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Court of Voronezh ¦ ¦
L---------------------------+-------------------------+-----------
Appendix 2
---------------------------------------T-------------------------¬
¦ NAME OF APPLICANT ¦ AMOUNT TO BE PAID FOR ¦
¦ ¦ PECUNIARY DAMAGE (RUR) ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦1. Nina Alekseyevna Shestopalova ¦ 2,739.3 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦2. Anastasiya Petrovna Barkova ¦ 3,200.3 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦3. Aleksandra Ivanovna Basova ¦ 6,175.4 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦4. Valentina Mikhaylovna Bokova ¦ 3,017.5 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦5. Lyudmila Vasilyevna Borisova ¦ 4,620.1 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦6. Valentina Aleksandrovna Bykovskaya ¦ 4,521.3 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦7. Nelya Vasilyevna Voroshilina ¦ 2,938.6 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦8. Olga Ivanovna Vysotskaya ¦ 5,561.08 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦9. Zinaida Petrovna Goncharova ¦ 13,293.3 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦10. Svetlana Mikhaylovna Zagorskaya ¦ 5,341.9 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦11. Valentina Vasilyevna Klepikova ¦ 6,475.1 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦12. Nina Timofeyevna Kozyavkina ¦ 2,718.7 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦13. Tatyana Alekseyevna Kolyukayeva ¦ 11,515.8 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦14. Tatyana Ivanovna Ksenz ¦ 5,384.6 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦15. Nina Semenovna Kuimova ¦ 2,085.6 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦16. Lyudmila Ivanovna Kudryavtseva ¦ 11,338.4 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦17. Irina Nikolayevna Lavrentyeva ¦ 3,143.4 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦18. Valentina Mikhaylovna Lipovtseva ¦ 5,739.5 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦19. Mariya Fedorovna Minakova ¦ 2,803.06 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦20. Yelena Tikhonovna Moshurova ¦ 11,782.07 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦21. Vera Konstantinovna Myasoyedova ¦ 11,338.4 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦22. Lyubov Mikhaylovna Nebolsina ¦ 13,993.2 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦23. Marina Leonidovna Panina ¦ 12,589.5 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦24. Valentina Ivanovna Popova ¦ 8,032.4 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦25. Nina Ivanovna Ryabova ¦ 3,628.3 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦26. Valentina Yegorovna Sinelnikova ¦ 2,713.1 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦27. Lyubov Germanovna Skopintseva ¦ 16,166.7 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦28. Valentina Mikhaylovna Slepokurova ¦ 2,941.9 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦29. Natalya Aleksandrovna Spakhova ¦ 2,172 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦30. Yevgeniya Aleksandrovna Starykh ¦ 8,123.8 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦31. Valentina Alekseyevna Stolpovskaya¦ 6,007.8 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦32. Tatyana Pavlovna Tomilina ¦ 9,730.2 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦33. Yelena Viktorovna Trofimova ¦ 5,432.5 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦34. Valentina Nikolayevna Urazova ¦ 5,317.7 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦35. Irina Viktorovna Tsunenko ¦ 11,782.07 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦36. Galina Ivanovna Shamayeva ¦ 2,699.8 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦37. Tatyana Mitrofanovna Sheremetyeva ¦ 2,489.7 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
¦38. Nina Vasilyevna Yarkina ¦ 6,071.7 ¦
L--------------------------------------+--------------------------
|
