FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6182/07
Raisa Vasilyevna BRUYEVA against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
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’ acceptance of their terms,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 were parties to civil proceedings that took place in courts of ordinary jurisdiction in various regions of Russia. These disputes concerned various civil matters such as labour, housing, property and monetary issues. In all of the above cases the domestic courts took lengthy periods of time to examine the applicants’ claims ranging between five and ten years.
The applicants complained, in particular, about the length of the proceedings in their cases.
On various dates the Government submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving this issue. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article 6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums tabulated below, which would constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision.
B. Complaints about the length of proceedings
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 in paragraph 1 (a), (b), or (c) of that Article.
In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) is applicable in the present case in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned. Further, the terms of the declarations are in line with the Court’s practice in similar cases. Finally, the Court considers that further examination of the applications in this part is not required by respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned, that part of applications should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
C. Complaint of lack of an effective domestic remedy
Some applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings.
The Government did not specify their position in relation to this complaint.
The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduced by federal laws № 68-FZ and № 69-FZ on 4 May 2010 in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009).
On 23 September 2010 the Court decided that all new cases introduced after the Burdov pilot judgment and falling within the scope of the new domestic remedy had to be submitted in the first place to the national courts (see Fakhretdinov and Others, cited above, § 32). The Court also stated that its position may be subject to review in the future, depending in particular on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent practice under the new law in line with the Convention requirements (ibid. § 33).
Finally, the Court notes that all the applicants were in principle enabled to claim compensation under the transitional provisions of the new law and that they will in any event receive pecuniary compensation in respect of their grievances in accordance with the Government’s declarations examined above.
Having regard to these special circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to continue a separate examination of the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in the present cases (see, Zemlyanskiy and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 18969/06 et al., 13 March 2012, and Pobudilina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 7142/05 et al., 29 March 2011).
D. Other complaints
Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that the applications in this part are manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 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;
Decides to strike the applications in respect of the length of proceedings out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention;
Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaints of lack of an effective remedy;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 February 2015.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Compensation offered (euros)
6182/07
15/12/2006
Raisa Vasilyevna BRUYEVA
14/06/1950
St Petersburg
2,500
9801/07
31/01/2007
Galina Nikolayevna PISKUN
26/04/1959
St Petersburg
Yelena Aleksandrovna PISKUN
13/04/1978
St Petersburg
Tatyana Aleksandrovna PISKUN
02/08/1983
St Petersburg
4,000 to each
11784/07
05/02/2007
Aleksandr Vladimirovich RUKAVITSYN
09/07/1964
Omsk
Vladimir Yakovlevich RUKAVITSYN
17/11/1939
Omsk
Irina Viktorovna KOLESNIKOVA
11/12/1969
Omsk
Represented by:
Aleksandr Nikolayevich KHARITONOV
2,500 to each
37887/07
14/07/2007
Arkadiy Valeryevich RYABICHENKO
15/11/1986
Kaliningrad
3,000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy