FIRST SECTION

DECISION

This version was rectified on 29 August 2012 and 24 April 2013
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

Application no. 25187/07
Genrikh Nikolayevich AGASIYEV and Others
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 February 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2004,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009),

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix below. Mr O. Anisimov died on 27 June 2000 before the individual application on his behalf was lodged under Article 34 by Ms V. Anisimova.

The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr A. Nosov who practised in Vladikavkaz and Mr D. Gorev, a lawyer practising in Offenbach am Main, Germany. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented first by Ms V. Milinchuk and then by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants are acting or former police officers who participated in the conflict-resolution operations in the republics of North Ossetia and Ingushetia in 1992. They subsequently sued the North Ossetia-Alania Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior for arrears of various allowances due to them for the period of service. On various dates in 2001 and 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz allowed their claims. These judgments became binding and were enforced in 2004 and 2005.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement or belated enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

They also complained that the authorities had refused to pay them some other amounts they had allegedly been entitled to and invoked Article 14 of the Convention alleging that they had been subjected to discrimination in comparison to other police officers who had received such payments.

THE LAW

1. Following the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above, the Government informed the Court of the payment of the domestic court award in Mr Anisimov’s favour and submitted a unilateral declaration in his respect designed to provide acknowledgment and redress of the belated enforcement. However, given that Mr Anisimov died in 2000, the complaint lodged by Ms Anisimova on his behalf on 25 March 2004 is incompatible with the Convention ratione personae in the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) of the Convention and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

2. The Government informed the Court in a similar manner of the payment of the domestic court awards in the remaining fifty applicants’ favour and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issue of belated enforcement. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the excessive duration of enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated in the appendix. The remainder of the declarations reads as follows:

“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

The [sums tabulated below], which [are] to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. [They] will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay [these sums] within the said three‑month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on [them] from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The applicants disagreed with the Government’s declarations insisting on examination of the rest of their complaints.

The Court reiterates that under Article 37 of the Convention it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article.

Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of