THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6494/05
Alla Alekseyevna BORISENKO against Russia
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 December 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 6494/05 the applicant also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI)).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is 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 the light of the above considerations, 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).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
The applicant in application no. 6494/05 also raised another complaint under Article 6 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations in so far as they concern the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application no. 6494/05 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 January 2018.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant /household
(in euros)[i]
6494/05
17/01/2005
Alla Alekseyevna Borisenko
14/05/1947
03/08/2016
10/10/2016
1,330
8064/06
21/01/2006
Vladimir Aleksandrovich Tyurin
31/01/1952
09/12/2015
04/02/2016
1,490
58317/08
17/10/2008
(3 applicants)
Household
Galina Petrovna Shepeleva
05/07/1952
Sergey Vyacheslavovich Shepelev
30/01/1973
Marina Vyacheslavovna Shepeleva
30/10/1977
29/09/2016
3,440
54463/10
05/09/2010
Aleksandr Valentinovich Kiselev
25/01/1959
16/12/2015
22/02/2016
3,200
7364/11
26/01/2011
Vecheslav Nikolayevich Kapustnikov
14/02/1959
30/09/2016
6,500
11007/11
12/01/2011
Igor Vasilyevich Baburin
18/09/1968
16/12/2015
4,480
11216/11
16/01/2011
Vladimir Leonidovich Matveyev
30/01/1963
30/09/2016
4,530
35179/11
19/04/2011
Aleksandr Vasilyevich Gusinskiy
05/05/1964
30/09/2016
4,810
36022/11
27/04/2011
Sergey Aleksandrovich Kotin
30/04/1962
16/12/2015
03/02/2016
3,790
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy