FIRST SECTION
DECISION
ALEKSENTSEVA and 28 Others against Russia
(nos. 75025/01, 75026/01, 75027/01, 75028/01, 75029/01, 75030/01, 75031/01, 75032/01, 75033/01, 75034/01, 75035/01, 75036/01, 75037/01, 75038/01, 75136/01, 76386/01, 76542/01, 76736/01, 77049/01, 77051/01, 77052/01, 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02, 8190/02 and 8192/02) [*]
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates set out in the appended schedule,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are clean-up workers of the Chernobyl nuclear accident site or dependants of deceased workers. They all live in the town of Shakhty, the Rostov Region.
On the dates set out in the schedule the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments in their favour. The judgments were made against the local social security offices and the latter were ordered to pay the applicants certain amounts.
When the applications were lodged with this Court, the judgments had not been enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of final judgments in their favour.
THE LAW
1. By letter of 22 October 2002 the Government expressly acknowledged that there had been a violation of the Convention in the applicants’ cases and informed the Court that they had paid the arrears and compensation for non-enforcement and were prepared to pay additional compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
On 4 January 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Government in respect of each applicant:
“I declare that the Russian authorities have already paid the sums due under the domestic judgment, of which the applicant complains. In addition, we offer to pay the amount of EUR [1,500 or 3,000, depending on the period when the judgment remained unenforced] to [the respective applicant’s name] in respect of the application no. [the respective application number] on an ex gratia basis for the withdrawal of [his/her] application pending before the Court. This sum (EUR [1,500/3,000]) shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable converted in Russian roubles on the date of payment, free of any taxes that may be applicable, within three months after the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The applicants, in their written replies, rejected the Government’s initiative. They did not dispute the receipt of outstanding amounts due to them, but they argued that the amounts, as determined by the domestic courts and social security offices and the basis applied for their indexation, had been unsatisfactory.
2. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of that Article.
Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if :
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”
Article 37 § 1 in fine states :
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court considers that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a declaration by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Relevant factors in this respect include the nature of the complaints made, whether the issues raised are comparable to issues already determined by the Court in previous cases, the nature and scope of any measures taken by the respondent Government in the context of the execution of judgments delivered by the Court in any such previous cases, and the impact of these measures on the case at issue (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 76, ECHR 2003‑...). Other relevant factors may include the question of whether the respondent Government have made any admissions in relation to the alleged violations of the Convention and, if so, the scope of such admissions and the manner in which they intend to provide redress to the applicant (ibid.)
3. First, the Court notes that the complaints made by the applicants in this case were of a pecuniary nature and concerned an alleged violation of their rights to have a final court decision, made in their favour against a State authority, enforced. Their complaints are similar to those made in the Burdov v. Russia case (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002‑III, admissibility decision of 21 June 2001, judgment of 7 May 2002). The applicants come from the same area as Mr Burdov and the judgments in their favour were made against the same State agency.
As to the measures taken by the Government in the execution of the Burdov judgment, the Court notes the following developments in the Russian Federation.
On 24 October 2000, in response to an inquiry of the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, a deputy Prime Minister reported that the federal budget for the fiscal year 2000 allocated 800 million Russian roubles specifically for payments to former Chernobyl clean-up workers.
On 25 October 2000 the upper chamber of the Russian parliament examined the information received from the Government and requested the Government to ensure payment of all allowances to Chernobyl clean-up workers in full and on time. It also offered the lower chamber to provide in the next year’s budget for a special allocation to this category of payments.
Also, the Court notes that during the examination of the Burdov case at the 810th (October 2002) and 819th (December 2002) meetings of the Committee of Ministers, the Russian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers of a number of measures adopted in response to the judgment in the Burdov case, including, in particular, payment of arrears because of the non-execution of domestic judgments ordering the payment of allowances for the victims of Chernobyl (a total of 284,6 million roubles were paid between January and October 2002).
The Court next notes that the Government paid in full all the amounts due to the applicants in the present cases. In their letter of 22 October 2002 the Government, with reference to the Burdov judgment, admitted that the present cases were substantially similar to the Burdov case and that there had also been a violation in the present cases as well. The Government also reported to the Court that they had paid the arrears, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount determined by the Russian courts for a failure to execute the final decisions on time. In addition to this payment, the Government confirmed their readiness to pay non-pecuniary damage to the applicants similar to the amount awarded by the Court to Mr Burdov.
The Court recalls that in cases in which it is possible to eliminate the effects of an alleged violation and the Government declare their readiness to do so, the intended redress is more likely to be regarded as appropriate for the purposes of striking out the application, the Court, as always, retaining its power to restore the application to its list as provided in Article 37 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 5 of the Rules of Court (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], cited above, § 76 in fine).
The Court has examined the Government’s submissions and the terms of their declarations. Having regard to the fact that the Government did not dispute the facts, acknowledged the violation, provided appropriate redress and expressed their readiness to pay specifically indicated additional amounts to cover any damages and costs, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Having regard to these considerations and also to the fact that the execution of the Burdov judgment is currently under supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue the examination of the applications.
Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
SCHEDULE
NAME OF APPLICANT
APPLICATION NO.
DATE OF INTRODUCTION
JUDGMENT CONCERNING
SUSPENSION OF COMPENSATION
INDEXATION OF 1996/1997 AWARD
JUDGMENT CONCERNING AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
Usanov Gennadiy Pavlovich
75030/01
01/08/2001
03/03/1997
04/02/2000
05/08/1999
Zolotukhin Oleg Sergeyevich
75032/01
23/07/2001
19/02/1997
23/08/2000
13/05/1999
Gaydukov Stepan Vladimirovich
75038/01
25/07/2001
17/02/1997
09/03/2000
30/04/1999
Dremlyugin Vladimir Nikolayevich
75136/01
14/08/2001
17/02/1997
09/03/2000
30/04/1999
Frolov Vladimir Nikolayevich
77051/01
31/10/2001
17/02/1997
04/02/2000
01/07/1999
Pakhmonov Vladimir Nikolayevich
3999/02
13/12/2001
20/02/1997
23/08/2000
24/05/1999
Ochiyev Vitaliy Fedorovich
5388/02
11/12/2001
18/02/1997
23/08/2000
21/05/1999
Saplenkov Vladimir Ivanovich
8190/02
23/07/2001
17/02/1997
04/02/2000
28/07/1999
Gladkov Anatoliy Andreyevich
75026/01
01/08/2001
17/03/1997
not requested
05/07/1999
Shabalin Boris Federovich
75027/01
23/07/2001
18/03/1997
not requested
06/07/1999
Mandrykin Vladimir Aleksandrovich
75028/01
23/07/2001
08/04/1997
not requested
17/04/1997
09/07/1999
Lobanov Vladimir Ivanovich
75029/01
01/08/2001
19/03/1997
not requested
21/05/1999
Olishchuk Ivan Vladimirovich
75031/01
01/08/2001
19/02/1997
not requested
24/06/1999
Chernyshkov Aleksandr Ivanovich
75034/01
09/08/2001
26/02/2001
not requested
31/03/1999
Shishkov Aleksey Ivanovich
75035/01
09/08/2001
19/03/1997
not requested
30/04/2000
Avsetsin Nikolay Fedorovich
75036/01
25/07/2001
28/02/1997
not requested
04/06/1999
Grechko Valeriy Viktorovich
75037/01
25/07/2001
28/02/1998
not requested
07/07/1999
Kosygin Vyacheslav Fedorovich
76386/01
15/10/2001
07/04/1997
not requested
25/05/1999
09/07/1999
Kot Gennadiy Iosifovich
76542/01
02/10/2001
25/02/1997
not requested
28/06/2000
Sevostyanov Viktor Sergeyevich
76736/01
22/10/2001
22/04/1997
not requested
09/06/1999
Paramonov Vladimir Alekseyevich
77053/01
05/09/2001
28/02/1997
not requested
24/06/1999
Novikov Nikolay Nikolayevich
5384/02
28/11/2001
11/12/1996
not requested
03/06/1999
Aleksentseva Valentina Dmitriyevna
75025/01
01/08/2001
none
―
06/07/1999
Vazhenin Nikolay Yegorovich
75033/01
01/08/2001
none
―
07/10/1999
Suvorova Svetlana Anatloyevna
77049/01
06/09/2001
none
―
21/02/2000
Klimchuk Yevgeniy Vladimirovich
77052/01
29/10/2001
none
―
04/10/1999
Suyev Dmitriy Nikolayevich
5314/02
10/08/2001
none
―
24/06/1999
Fedorenko Aleksandr Grigoryevich
5419/02
28/11/2001
none
―
03/09/1998
15/07/1999
Panteleyev Yuriy Vasilyevich
8192/02
10/08/2001
none
―
17/06/1999
[*] The names of the applicants are listed in the Schedule.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy