FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27127/05
Nikolay Aleksandrovich ALOV against Russia
and 10 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on dates tabulated in the appendix below,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 22 September 2010 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to these declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are eighteen Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix below. Mr Alov was represented by Mr V.I. Faustov, a lawyer practicing in the Tula Region. Mr Derevenskikh was represented by Mr N.D. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practicing in Voronezh. Ms Khudobina, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Gadzhiyeva, Ms Zubkova, Ms Kiryanova and Mr Fedorov were represented by Mr G.A. Migay, a lawyer practicing in Moscow. Mr Kovalev and Ms Kovaleva, Mr Nosov, Mr Malikov, Mr Oshchepkov, Mr Seregin, Mr Romanenko, Mr Chegodayev and Mr Volchenko and Ms Volchenko acted pro se before the Court. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are pensioners. They successfully sued authorities for miscalculating their old age pensions or other social benefit payments. Subsequently, on the authorities’ initiative, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or Regional Courts quashed the final judgments by way of supervisory review to the applicants’ detriment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about quashing of judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review.
THE LAW
The applicants complained about quashing of final and enforceable judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
“In the determination of his [or her] civil rights and obligations [...], everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law [...]”
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.”
By letter dated 22 September 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
In those declarations, the Government acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights on account of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review. In all cases except for the case of Mr Derevenskikh, the Government mentioned that the judgments in the applicants’ favour had been fully executed prior to their quashing by way of supervisory review. In the case of Mr Derevenskikh, the Government submitted that the judgment in his favour had been fully enforced on 23 July 2010. The Government undertook to pay the applicants the sums indicated in the appendix as compensation for damage resulting from the violations mentioned above.
The reminder of their declarations, formulated in similar terms, reads as follows:
“The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it 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.”
Mr Alov and Mr Nosov did not reply to the Government’s declarations. The other applicants disagreed with the Government’s suggestion to strike their cases out, insisting on examination of their complaints. Two applicants – Mr and Ms Volchenko - agreed with the sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage proposed in the declaration. Nevertheless, all the applicants who replied, except for Ms Gadzhieva, Ms Zubkova and Ms Kiryanova, requested payment of different sums in respect of pecuniary damages which they had allegedly sustained. Some of them indicated that the Government had not paid the judgment debts, without submitting any documents in support of these allegations. Moreover, Mr Chegodayev, Mr Kovalev and Ms Kovaleva, and Ms and Mr Volchenko claimed the sums which they would have continued to perceive on a monthly basis if the judgments in their favour had not been quashed.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide 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 paragraph 1 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”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
Turning to the facts of the present cases, the Court observes that the judgments providing the applicants with an enforceable claim were quashed by way of supervisory review. The Court is satisfied that the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants’ favour is explicitly acknowledged by the Government as violating the Convention.
As regards the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, the Court notes that according to the Government, the amounts awarded by the judgments in the applicants’ favour were fully paid to them prior to their quashing, except for Mr Derevenskikh who received the judicial award on 23 July 2010. The Government provided documents supporting those payments. Some applicants contested the fact that the payments had indeed taken place. However, the Court cannot accept the applicants’ argument as they have not provided any documentary evidence. Thus it admits that the judgments in the applicants’ favour were fully enforced by the Russian authorities. Besides, as regards the case of Mr Derevenskikh, the Court is satisfied that the Government acknowledged the delay in payment of the judgment debt and offered an increased amount of compensation in order to take it into account.
As to the claims of Mr Chegodayev, Mr Kovalev and Ms Kovaleva, and Ms and Mr Volchenko in respect of their future pecuniary loss, the Court recalls that after the final judgments were quashed they ceased to exist under domestic law; it cannot restore the power of these judgments nor assume the role of the national authorities in awarding social benefits for the future (see, among other authorities, Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia, nos. 11093/07 et al., § 51, 7 July 2009). Consequently, no pecuniary awards could be legimately claimed under the Convention for the periods after the quashing.
As far as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage is concerned, the Court notes that the relevant sums offered by the Government are comparable with the Court’s awards in similar cases (see Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 4563/07 et al., § 23, 17 December 2009, and Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 et al., § 96, 29 July 2010).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).
In light of the above considerations, and given also the clear and extensive case-law on the topic (see, for example, Kulkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 25114/03 et al., 8 January 2009, and Pugach and Others v. Russia, nos. 31799/08 et al., 4 November 2010), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
André Wampach Peer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant’s name and date of birth
Compensation offered (euros)
1.
27127/05
06/07/2005
Alov Nikolay Aleksandrovich
16/07/1955
1,400
2.
38999/06
31/08/2006
Derevenskikh Nikolay Dmitriyevich
20/08/1934
2,600
3.
42582/06
30/08/2006
Kovalev Vladimir Aleksandrovich
15/02/1949
Kovaleva Natalya Vasilyevna
05/03/1951
1,400 to each applicant
4.
42610/06
23/08/2006
Nosov Aleksandr Nikolayevich
01/07/1959
1,400
5.
42981/06
21/08/2006
Malikov Igor Ivanovich
21/05/1956
Oshchepkov Aleksandr Arkadyevich
16/05/1957
Seregin Sergey Fedorovich
13/08/1954
Romanenko Aleksandr Petrovich
born in Kemerovo
1,400 to each applicant
6.
5765/07
02/12/2006
Chegodayev Yuriy Aleksandrovich
10/08/1945
1,400
7.
47475/07
21/09/2007
Volchenko Lyudmila Andreyevna
01/02/1954
Volchenko Viktor Ivanovich
23/04/1954
1,400 to each applicant
8.
6381/08
22/01/2008
Khudobina Zinaida Vasilyevna
20/11/1947
1,400
9.
7897/08
25/01/2008
Gerasimova Nadezhda Aleksandrovna
13/09/1943
1,400
10.
9287/08
25/01/2008
Gadzhiyeva Natalya Alekseyevna
18/06/1954
Zubkova Nina Petrovna
14/08/1939
Kiryanova Zinaida Aleksandrovna
02/09/1932
1,400 to each applicant
11.
9359/08
11/02/2008
Fedorov Nikolay Petrovich
08/03/1946
1,400
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy