Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)83
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Ryabykh group (113 cases) against Russian Federation
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 March 2017 at the 1280th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases (see Appendix 1) and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having noted that the just satisfaction, where awarded, has been paid by the government of the respondent State;
Noting with satisfaction the measures adopted by the Russian authorities to resolve the problem of the violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing of final judicial decisions by way of supervisory-review proceedings in civil matters (“nadzor”) (see Appendix 2);
Taking also into consideration the Court’s judgments delivered after the adoption of the various legislative reforms, in which the Court examined the conformity of the new supervisory-review procedure with the European Convention;
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix 1List of cases
Application
Case
Judgment of
Final on
52854/99
RYABYKH
24/07/2003
03/12/2003
11227/05
ABDULLAYEV
11/02/2010
11/05/2010
39897/02
AGASARYAN
20/11/2008
20/02/2009
2993/03
AKALINSKIY
07/06/2007
07/09/2007
51380/07
ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV
12/03/2009
12/06/2009
32991/05
ANDREYEV
04/03/2010
04/06/2010
63973/00
ANDROSOV
06/10/2005
15/02/2006
44142/05
ASMAYEV
14/03/2013
14/03/2013
24130/04+
BARANOV AND OTHERS
09/02/2016
09/02/2016
17472/04
BODROV
12/02/2009
12/05/2009
30671/03
BORIS VASILYEV
15/02/2007
15/05/2007
42234/04
BORODKIN
17/09/2009
17/12/2009
14853/03
BORSHCHEVSKIY
21/09/2006
12/02/2007
62866/00
BOYCHENKO AND GERSHKOVICH
28/06/2007
28/09/2007
23795/02
CHEBOTAREV
22/06/2006
22/09/2006
30714/03
CHEKUSHKIN
15/02/2007
15/05/2007
5964/02
CHERNITSYN
06/04/2006
13/09/2006
30686/03
DANILCHENKO
15/02/2007
15/05/2007
7182/03+
DAVLETKHANOV AND OTHER “CHERNOBYL PENSIONERS”
23/09/2010
23/12/2010
18967/07
DAVYDOV
30/10/2014
30/01/2015
3244/04
DEMENTYEV
06/11/2008
06/02/2009
27101/04
DMITRIYEVA
03/04/2008
29/09/2008
18451/04
DOLBIN
19/04/2016
19/04/2016
2999/03
DOVGUCHITS
07/06/2007
07/09/2007
7319/05+
EYDELMAN AND OTHER “EMIGRANT PENSIONERS”
04/11/2010
04/02/2011
12157/06
GARAGULYA
20/05/2010
20/08/2010
30674/03
GAVRILENKO
15/02/2007
15/05/2007
20430/04
GLADYSHEV AND OTHERS
07/02/2008
07/05/2008
42974/07
GORFUNKEL
19/09/2013
19/12/2013
30777/03
GREBENCHENKO
15/02/2007
15/05/2007
13173/03
GUDKOV
22/12/2009
22/03/2010
20023/07
GULYAYEV
12/05/2010
12/08/2010
10277/05
IGNATYEVA
03/04/2008
22/12/2009
03/07/2008
22/03/2010
1752/02
IRINA FEDOTOVA
19/10/2006
19/01/2007
11697/05
IVANOVA
24/04/2008
24/07/2008
19136/04
KALINICHENKO
12/03/2009
12/06/2009
32185/02
KAYKHANIDI
10/10/2013
10/10/2013
14290/03+
KAZAKEVICH AND 9 OTHER “ARMY PENSIONERS” CASES
14/01/2010
14/04/2010
42538/02
KAZMIN
13/01/2011
20/06/2011
2173/04
KHANUSTARANOV
28/05/2014
28/05/2014
27114/04
KHOTULEVA
30/07/2009
06/11/2009
38597/04
KIRILENKO
05/04/2011
05/04/2011
11785/02
KLIMENKO
18/01/2007
18/04/2007
30709/03
KLIMENKO AND OSTAPENKO
23/07/2009
23/10/2009
22419/05+
KLIMOVA AND OTHERS
08/12/2015
08/12/2015
30685/03
KNYAZHICHENKO
15/02/2007
15/05/2007
30711/03
KOBERNIK
11/06/2015
11/06/2015
25965/03
KOKSHAROVA
02/10/2014
02/10/2014
75473/01
KONDRASHOVA
16/11/2006
16/02/2007
24178/05
KOROVINA
25/02/2010
25/05/2010
20887/03
KOT
18/01/2007
18/04/2007
36299/03+
KOVALENKO AND OTHERS
08/12/2015
08/12/2015
34615/02
KRAVCHENKO
02/04/2009
02/07/2009
7306/07+
KRAYNOVA AND KRAYNOV AND 9 OTHER “YAKUT PENSIONERS”
17/12/2009
17/03/2010
14390/05
KUCHEROV AND FROLOVA
11/02/2010
11/05/2010
36495/02
KURINNYY
12/06/2008
12/09/2008
68029/01
KUTEPOV AND ANIKEYENKO
25/10/2005
15/02/2006
12100/05+
KUZMIN AND OTHERS
14/06/2016
14/06/2016
15242/04
KUZMINA
02/04/2009
02/07/2009
16076/06+
LENCHENKOV AND OTHERS
21/10/2010
21/02/2011
3548/04
LUCHKINA
10/04/2008
10/07/2008
42981/06
MALIKOV AND OSHCHEPKOV
12/11/2015
12/11/2015
22156/04
MIKHAYLOV
22/10/2009
22/01/2010
5941/06+
MISHURA AND GAYEVA
29/10/2015
29/10/2015
3447/05+
MOLODYKA AND OTHERS
23/07/2009
23/10/2009
7944/05
MORDACHEV
25/02/2010
25/05/2010
26338/06
MURTAZIN
27/03/2008
27/06/2008
45017/04
NEKHOROSHEV
10/04/2008
10/07/2008
14502/04
NELYUBIN
02/11/2006
26/03/2007
3447/06
NIKOLAY ZAYTSEV
18/02/2010
18/05/2010
38103/04
NIKOLENKO
26/03/2009
26/06/2009
9549/05
PANASENKO
01/04/2010
01/07/2010
44543/04
PAROLOV
14/06/2007
30/01/2008
7061/02
PETROV
21/12/2006
21/03/2007
4874/03
PITELIN AND OTHERS
14/06/2007
14/09/2007
24247/04
PRISYAZHNIKOVA AND DOLGOPOLOV
28/09/2006
28/12/2006
30422/03
PSHENICHNYY
14/02/2008
07/07/2008
31799/08+
PUGACH AND OTHERS
04/11/2010
04/02/2011
60974/00
ROSELTRANS
21/07/2005
21/10/2005
15037/05
SAKHAROVA
02/05/2013
02/05/2013
47388/06
SAMAROV
28/05/2014
28/05/2014
32865/06+
SENCHENKO AND OTHERS AND 35 OTHER “YAKUT PENSIONERS” CASES
28/05/2009
06/11/2009
30731/03
SEPTA
15/02/2007
15/05/2007
12793/02
SEREGINA
30/11/2006
28/02/2007
1861/05
SERGEY PETROV
10/05/2007
10/08/2007
28309/03+
SERGEYEV AND OTHERS
06/03/2012
06/03/2012
21834/05
SHANOVY
07/02/2012
07/02/2012
34248/05+
SHAPKIN AND OTHERS
15/03/2016
15/03/2016
40713/04
SHCHUROV
29/03/2011
29/06/2011
7873/09+
SHEYMAN
26/06/2016
26/06/2016
2982/05+
SHURYGINA AND OTHERS
15/03/2016
15/03/2016
55531/00
SITKOV
18/01/2007
18/04/2007
38585/04+
SIZINTSEVA AND OTHERS
08/04/2010
08/07/2010
73203/01
SMARYGIN
01/12/2005
01/03/2006
30672/03+
SOBELIN AND OTHERS
03/05/2007
03/08/2007
8564/02
STANISLAS VOLKOV
15/03/2007
15/06/2007
878/03
STETSENKO AND STETSENKO
05/10/2006
05/01/2007
8269/02
SUTYAZHNIK
23/07/2009
10/12/2009
24559/04
TALYSHEVA
22/12/2009
22/03/2010
11093/07+
TARNOPOLSKAYA AND OTHERS
09/07/2009
28/06/2010
4596/02
TAYANKO
02/09/2010
02/12/2010
22551/06
TKACHEV
11/12/2008
11/03/2009
43327/02
TSAREVA
01/04/2010
01/07/2010
66543/01
VASILYEV
13/10/2005
12/04/2006
48758/99
VOLKOVA
05/04/2005
05/07/2005
44381/04
VOTINTSEVA
11/02/2010
11/05/2010
43166/04
YAKOVLEVA
10/07/2014
10/07/2014
21594/05
YELISEYEV
28/05/2014
28/05/2014
69341/01
YURIY ROMANOV
25/10/2005
15/02/2006
23333/05
ZALEVSKAYA
11/02/2010
28/06/2010
67051/01
ZASURTSEV
27/04/2006
27/07/2006
14805/02
ZELENKEVICH AND OTHERS
20/06/2013
20/06/2013
25448/06
ZVEZDIN
14/06/2007
14/09/2007
Appendix 2
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the Ryabykh group of cases against Russian Federation
I.CASE DESCRIPTION
The Ryabykh group (113 cases) concerns the violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing of final judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour by way of the supervisory-review procedure (“nadzor”) provided for by the Code of Civil Proceedings (Article 6 § 1) and the violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), in various regions of the Russian Federation before 2012.
In the cases concerning events prior to 2003, the European Court found the violations on account of the quashing of final and binding judicial decisions by a higher court via supervisory-review on an application made by a State official whose power to lodge such an application was not subject to any time-limit.
In the cases concerning events after 2003, the Court found that, although limited to only the parties in the case and subjected to a one-year time-limit, the supervisory-review procedure remained an extraordinary means of reopening proceedings, as the time-limit introduced was rendered nugatory in practice by the existence of multiple levels of review and the maintaining, at each level, of the court presidents’ unfettered powers to reopen the case even after that time-limit had expired. Further, the Court criticised the procedural deficiencies, such as the failure to exhaust the ordinary avenues of appeal.
In 20 of these cases, the Court also found other violations, as follows: violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of civil proceedings (this issue is being examined in the Kormacheva group of cases); violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the delays in the enforcement of judicial decisions concerning the State’s monetary obligations (this issue is being examined in the Timofeyev group of cases); and violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of final judicial decisions regarding pension rights on the basis of newly discovered circumstances (this issue is being examined in the Pravednaya group of cases).
II.INDIVIDUAL MEASURES
In all cases in which the European Court granted a just satisfaction, the relevant amounts (including default interest) have been paid (see Appendix 3). In eight cases there were short and insignificant delays in the payment of just satisfaction. The amounts of interest in these cases are very low and to date the applicants have neither objected to the delay in the payment nor requested the payment of interest.
Further, it is important to note that in all the cases in which the applicants made well-grounded claims for pecuniary damage in respect of the sums which they had legitimately expected to receive before the final judgments in their favour were quashed, the European Court awarded it. As regards claims in respect of future pecuniary loss in cases which concerned regular payments by the State, the European Court held that it could not restore the power of the quashed judicial decisions nor assume the role of the national authorities in awarding social benefits for the future (Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russian Federation,
Nos. 11093/07 and seq., § 51, 7 July 2009; Streltsov and Others v. Russian Federation, Nos. 8549/06 and seq., § 91, 29 July 2010; Baturlova v. Russian Federation, No. 33188/08, § 61, 19 April 2011). In addition, the Court did not examine the legal soundness of the judicial decisions subsequently quashed. In this situation, while it has been open to the applicants to request a re-opening of the domestic proceedings and restoration of the power of the quashed judicial decisions, such reopening does not appear to be required.
For the same reasons, a re-opening of the domestic proceedings is also not required in the cases which additionally concern the recalculation of pension rights since the European Court granted the pecuniary claims where lodged by the applicants (see the case description).
As to the cases concerning excessively lengthy civil proceedings, it appears from the relevant judgments of the European Court that the proceedings had already been terminated when the European Court issued its judgments.
The cases concerning lengthy non-enforcement of the domestic judicial decisions concerned monetary awards against the State. In those cases in which the domestic judicial decision had not been enforced prior to the quashing, or where the applicant had to pay back the money following the quashing, the European Court either ordered the enforcement of the domestic judicial decision at issue or awarded the applicants the relevant amounts by way of pecuniary damages. In all the cases in which the European Court ordered the enforcement of the domestic judicial decisions, these decisions have been enforced. In the other cases, the domestic judicial decisions can be considered enforced via the payment of the just satisfaction.
Against the above background, no further individual measures are required in this group of cases.
III.GENERAL MEASURES
A.Interim resolution of the Committee of Ministers
Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)1 concerning violations of the principle of legal certainty through the supervisory-review procedure (“nadzor”) in civil matters in the Russian Federation, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 February 2006, reads, in its relevant parts, as follows:
“The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention [..];
Welcoming the reforms of the supervisory review (“nadzor”) procedure introduced by the new Code of Civil Procedure entered into force on 1 February 2003;
Noting with satisfaction, in particular, that some of the problems at the basis of the violations found in these cases have thus been remedied [..];
Stressing that a binding and enforceable judgment should be only altered in exceptional circumstances, while under the current “nadzor” procedure such a judgment may be quashed for any material or procedural violation;
Emphasising that in an efficient judicial system, errors and shortcomings in court decisions should primarily be addressed through ordinary appeal and/or cassation proceedings before the judgment becomes binding and enforceable, thus avoiding the subsequent risk of frustrating parties’ right to rely on binding judicial decisions;
Considering therefore that restricting the supervisory review of binding and enforceable judgments to exceptional circumstances must go hand-in-hand with improvement of the court structure and of the quality of justice, so as to limit the need for correcting judicial errors currently achieved through the “nadzor” procedure [..];
CALLS UPON the Russian authorities to give priority to the reform of civil procedure with a view to ensuring full respect for the principle of legal certainty established in the Convention, as interpreted by the Court’s judgments;
ENCOURAGES the authorities to ensure through this reform that judicial errors are corrected in the course of the ordinary appeal and/or cassation proceedings before judgments become final [..];
ENCOURAGES the authorities, pending the adoption of this comprehensive reform, to consider adoption of interim measures limiting as far as possible the risk of new violations of the Convention of the same kind, and in particular:
-continue to restrict progressively the use of the “nadzor” procedure, in particular through stricter time-limits for nadzor applications and limitation of permissible grounds for this procedure so as to encompass only the most serious violations of the law [..];
-to limit as much as possible the number of successive applications for supervisory review that may be lodged in the same case;
-to discourage frivolous and abusive applications for supervisory review which amount to a further disguised appeal motivated by a disagreement with the assessment made by the lower courts within their competences and in accordance with the law;
-to adopt measures inducing the parties adequately to use, as much as possible, the presently available cassation appeal to ensure rectification of judicial errors before judgments become final and enforceable;”.
B.Position of the Constitutional Court
In a judgment of 5 February 2007 (No. 2-П), the Constitutional Court found that the supervisory-review procedure governed by the Code of Civil Proceedings at the material time gave rise to a number of issues with regard to the principle of legal certainty enshrined in the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court. The court explicitly refrained from declaring these shortcomings unconstitutional to avoid a procedural vacuum that would undermine the effective administration of justice. It upheld nonetheless the obligation of the legislator to reform the supervisory-review procedure so as to make it compatible with the principle of legal certainty, taking account of the case law of the European Court and the Committee of Ministers’ Resolution ResDH(2006)1 of 8 February 2006.
C.Legislative reforms
Since the Ryabykh judgment, the supervisory-review procedure has been reformed on three occasions, in 2003, 2008 and 2012. Following the 2003 and 2008 reforms, only the parties to the proceedings could initiate a supervisory-review. Such initiatives could be made only within a certain time-limit and only after the available regular avenues of appeal had been exhausted. The time-limit could be waived (restored) only in exceptional circumstances and only if such circumstances arose within one year of the contested judgment’s becoming binding.
The subsequent reform of 2012 converted the first two (of three) levels of supervisory review (namely the presidia of the regional courts and the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court) into cassation procedures, while limiting the supervisory-review procedure to the Presidium of the Supreme Court (the former third level of supervisory-review).
D.Position of the Supreme Court
On 12 February 2008, the legislative reform was supplemented by a decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court (Decree no. 2) in which it provided guidelines to the lower courts, with a special emphasis on the need to comply with Convention requirements and in particular with the principle of legal certainty.
E.Publication and dissemination
The government undertook various publication and dissemination measures to ensure that various State authorities are aware of the Convention standards concerning the principle of legal certainty. The relevant judgments of the European Court were disseminated, in particular to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the regional courts of the respective regions. The judgments were also translated and published.
F.Assessment by the European Court
The question whether the supervisory-review procedure in force prior to 2008 violated the principle of legal certainty was considered by the European Court in a number of judgments in this group of cases. In these judgments, the European Court presumed that the quashing of final judgments via such a procedure violated the principle of legal certainty unless such quashing stemmed from a fundamental defect in the prior proceedings (see, among many others, Kot v. Russian Federation, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). Accordingly, in a few judgments the Court found no violation because the presumption was rebutted by the findings of “fundamental defects” in the proceedings before the lower courts, such as a failure to notify the defendant of the proceedings (see, for example, Tishkevich v. Russian Federation, No. 2202/05, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 06/04/2009).
The question whether the supervisory-review procedure in force between 2008 and 2012 violated the principle of legal certainty in specific cases was considered by the European Court in the judgment of Trapeznikov and Others v. Russian Federation (No. 5623/09, judgment of 05/04/2016, final on 05/07/2016).
The European Court found that in the cases at issue the supervisory-review had been initiated by the parties to the proceedings, within the defined time-limit, and only after the available regular avenues of appeal had been exhausted, which was sufficient to conclude that “the supervisory review as applied in the particular circumstances of these cases was not incompatible with the principle of legal certainty” (§§ 36, 37). The European Court additionally observed that, in these particular cases, the supervisory-review had been necessary to correct grave mistakes and to ensure a uniform application of the domestic case law (§ 38).
G.Statistics
The 2012 reform limiting the supervisory-review procedure to the Presidium of the Supreme Court has entailed that the supervisory-review procedure is now very seldom used in civil cases. Thus, in 2013, one case was examined on the merits using this procedure, with no cases examined in 2014 and two cases in 2015.
H.Other violations found
The general measures in response to the other violations found by the European Court in these cases are examined within the context of the relevant groups, as indicated in the case description (see above).
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT STATE
The Convention requirements concerning the principle of legal certainty, as interpreted by the European Court, have been incorporated in the reformed legislation. In particular, the supervisory-review procedure can now only be initiated by the parties to the proceedings, within a well-defined time-limit and only after the regular avenues of appeal had been exhausted. In addition, the supervisory-review procedure has been limited to the Presidium of the Supreme Court. It is expected that these legislative reforms, correctly implemented as clarified by the Supreme Court, will prevent further violations of the principle of legal certainty.
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, and will prevent similar violations and that the Russian Federation has, therefore, complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Appendix 3: List of payment of just satisfaction and of internal debt
No.
Case
Judgment final on
Sums awarded by the Court (in EUR, unless specified otherwise)
Payment deadline
Date of payment of the sums awarded by the Court
Payment of default interest
Payment of internal debt, as ordered by the Court
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
11227/05
ABDULLAYEV
11/05/2010
-
-
-
11/08/2010
-
-
-
39897/02
AGASARYAN
20/02/2009
750,00
2 000,00
-
20/05/2009
15/04/2009
-
-
2993/03
AKALINSKIY
07/09/2007
-
1 500,00
-
07/12/2007
06/12/2007
-
-
51380/07
ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV
12/06/2009
5 100,00
2 000,00
250,00
12/09/2009
11/09/2009
-
-
32991/05
ANDREYEV
04/06/2010
1 470,00
1 500,00
142,00
04/09/2010
19/07/2010
-
-
63973/00
ANDROSOV
15/02/2006
853,00
1 500,00
50,00
15/05/2006
07/06/2006
Paid
-
44142/05
ASMAYEV
14/03/2013
6 795,00
2 000,00
-
19/06/2013
Paid
-
24130/04
BARANOV AND OTHERS
95,000
1 783,00
09/05/2016
Between 24/03/2016 and 22/09/2016 to some applicants; 20/04/2016 (date of last invitation to submit bank account details to the heir of Mr Kuzmin); 10/05/2016 (date of last invitation to submit bank account details to the heir of Mr Zaytsev)
Paid where required; in some cases n/a (the applicants’ heirs have failed to submit their bank account details to date)
-
17472/04
BODROV
12/05/2009
341,00
2 000,00
-
12/08/2009
19/10/2009
n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline)
Paid
30671/03
BORIS VASILYEV
15/05/2007
-
-
-
15/08/2007
-
-
-
42234/04
BORODKIN
17/12/2009
3 382,00
2 000,00
-
17/03/2010
18/01/2010
-
-
14853/03
BORSHCHEVSKIY
12/02/2007
160 600,00
3 000,00
-
12/05/2007
19/04/2007
-
-
62866/00
BOYCHENKO AND GERSHKOVICH
28/09/2007
-
4 000,00
-
28/12/2007
05/12/2007
-
-
23795/02
CHEBOTAREV
22/09/2006
-
4 500,00
-
22/12/2006
12/12/2006
-
-
30714/03
CHEKUSHKIN
15/02/2007
-
-
-
15/05/2007
-
-
-
5964/02
CHERNITSYN
13/09/2006
-
2 000,00
200,00
13/12/2006
08/12/2006
-
-
30686/03
DANILCHENKO
15/05/2007
-
-
-
15/08/2007
-
-
-
7182/03
DAVLETKHANOV AND OTHER “CHERNOBYL PENSIONERS”
23/12/2010
5 060,00
12 000,00
210,00
23/03/2011
07/06/2011
Paid
-
18967/07
DAVYDOV
30/01/2015
-
2 000,00
-
30/04/2015
18/03/2015
-
-
3244/04
DEMENTYEV
06/02/2009
RUR 200 745,00
2 000,00
RUR 10000,00
06/05/2009
07/05/2009
Not significant (EUR 2.20 not paid)
Paid
27101/04
DMITRIYEVA
29/09/2008
4 100,00
3 500,00
-
19/07/2016
-
-
18451/04
DOLBIN
19/04/2016
-
5 000,00
23/06/2016
-
2999/03
DOVGUCHITS
07/09/2007
-
2 000,00
-
07/12/2007
13/11/2007
-
Paid
7319/05
EYDELMAN AND OTHER ‘EMIGRANT PENSIONERS’
04/02/2011
26 138,00
36 000,00
-
04/05/2011
16/05/2011
Paid
-
12157/06
GARAGULYA
20/08/2010
-
3 000,00
1 000,00
20/11/2010
02/12/2010
Paid
-
30674/03
GAVRILENKO
15/05/2007
-
-
-
15/08/2007
-
-
-
20430/04
GLADYSHEV and others
07/05/2008
-
4 000,00
-
07/08/2008
04/08/2008 (Mr Gladyshev); 11/09/2008 (Mr Mogilnikov)
n/a (Mr Mogilnikov provided his bank account details after the payment deadline)
Paid
42974/07
GORFUNKEL
19/12/2013
3 717,00
3 000,00
-
19/03/2014
25/12/2014
Paid
-
30777/03
GREBENCHENKO
15/05/2007
-
-
-
15/08/2007
-
-
-
13173/03
GUDKOV
22/03/2010
-
-
-
22/06/2010
-
-
-
20023/07
GULYAYEV
12/08/2010
-
3 000,00
500,00
12/11/2010
17/11/2010
Paid
-
10277/05
IGNATYEVA
03/07/2008, 22/03/2010
3 500,00
3 000,00
-
22/06/2010
14/07/2010
Paid
-
1752/02
IRINA FEDOTOVA
19/01/2007
-
2 000,00
10,00
19/04/2007
30/03/2007
-
-
11697/05
IVANOVA
24/07/2008
4 100,00
2 000,00
150,00
24/10/2008
27/11/2008
Not significant (EUR 40.92 not paid)
-
19136/04
KALINICHENKO
12/06/2009
7 750,00
2 000,00
240,00
12/09/2009
19/10/2009
Paid
Paid
32185/02
KAYKHANIDI
10/10/2013
-
2 000,00
177
10/01/2014
11/12/2013
-
-
14290/03
KAZAKEVICH AND 9 OTHER “ARMY PENSIONERS” CASES
14/04/2010
19 225,00
30 000,00
1 375,00
14/07/2010
30/06/2011
Paid
-
42538/02
KAZMIN
20/06/2011
225,00
3 000,00
-
20/09/2011
05/10/2011
n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline)
-
2173/04
KHANUSTARANOV
28/05/2014
2 274,00
-
3 000,00
28/08/2014
13/08/2014
-
-
27114/04
KHOTULEVA
06/11/2009
-
3 000,00
-
06/02/2010
18/03/2010
Paid
-
38597/04
KIRILENKO
05/04/2011
1 585,00
3 000,00
350,00
05/07/2011
14/07/2011
Paid
-
11785/02
KLIMENKO
18/04/2007
-
500,00
500,00
18/07/2007
03/08/2007
Paid
-
30709/03
KLIMENKO AND OSTAPENKO
23/10/2009
-
6 000,00
-
23/01/2010
30/11/2009
-
-
22419/05
KLIMOVA and Others
08/12/2015
15 000,00
150,00
08/03/2016
Between 09/03/2016 and 11/03/2016 to some applicants; 21/03/2016 (date of last invitation to submit bank account details to Ms Sevidova)
Not significant (EUR 9.04 not paid) in some cases; n/a in the case of Ms Sevidova
-
30685/03
KNYAZHICHENKO
15/05/2007
-
-
-
15/08/2007
-
-
-
30711/03
KOBERNIK
11/06/2015
1 370,00
2 000,00
-
11/09/2015
14/08/2015
-
-
25965/03
KOKSHAROVA
02/10/2014
-
-
-
02/01/2015
-
-
-
75473/01
KONDRASHOVA
16/02/2007
-
500,00
-
16/05/2007
30/03/2007
-
-
24178/05
KOROVINA
25/05/2010
-
-
-
25/08/2010
-
-
-
20887/03
KOT
18/04/2007
22 000,00
2 000,00
940,00
18/07/2007
27/07/2007
Paid
-
36299/03
KOVALENKO AND OTHERS
08/12/2015
25 000,00
RUR 8 150,00
08/03/2016
31/03/2016
Paid
-
34615/02
KRAVCHENKO
02/07/2009
-
2 000,00
-
02/10/2009
19/10/2009
Paid
Paid
7306/07
KRAYNOVA AND KRAYNOV AND 9 OTHER “YAKUT PENSIONERS”
17/03/2010
48,000
17/06/2010
15/07/2010
Paid
-
14390/05
KUCHEROV AND FROLOVA
11/05/2010
3 335,00
6 000,00
2 770,00
11/08/2010
19/07/2010
-
-
36495/02
KURINNYY
12/09/2008
-
-
-
12/12/2008
-
-
-
68029/01
KUTEPOV AND ANIKEYENKO
15/02/2006
-
-
-
15/05/2006
-
-
-
12100/05
KUZMIN AND OTHERS
14/06/2016
-
1 500,00
600,00
14/09/2016
16/09/2016 (Mr Prokopyev); 10/10/2016 (Mr Kuzmin -date of last invitation to the applicant to submit his bank account details)
Not significant in the case of Mr Prokopyev (EUR 1.04 not paid); n/a in the case of Mr Kuzmin
-
15242/04
KUZMINA
02/07/2009
5 890,00
2 000,00
240,00
02/10/2009
19/10/2009
Not significant (EUR 17.99 and RUR 767.79 not paid)
Paid
16076/06
LENCHENKOV AND OTHERS
21/02/2011
2 821,00
12 000,00
-
21/05/2011
16/05/2011
-
-
3548/04
LUCHKINA
10/07/2008
160,00
2 000,00
2 051,20
10/10/2008
10/11/2008
n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline)
-
42981/06
MALIKOV AND OSHCHEPKOV
12/11/2015
-
4 000,00
-
12/02/2016
04/03/2016
Paid
-
22156/04
MIKHAYLOV
22/01/2010
-
3 500,00
-
22/04/2010
22/03/2010
-
-
5941/06
MISHURA AND GAYEVA
29/10/2015
49 215,00
4 000,00
GBP 1 342,00
29/01/2016
17/03/2016 (Ms Gayeva); 05/04/2016 (Mr Mishura -date of last invitation to the applicant to submit his bank account details)
N/a (the applicants either submitted their bank account details after the payment deadline or have failed to submit them)
-
3447/05
MOLODYKA
23/10/2009
-
-
-
23/01/2010
-
-
-
7944/05
MORDACHEV
25/05/2010
4 640,00
3 000,00
68,00
25/08/2010
19/07/2010
-
-
26338/06
MURTAZIN
27/06/2008
7 300,00
4 700,00
-
27/09/2008
04/09/2008
-
-
45017/04
NEKHOROSHEV
10/07/2008
950,00
-
-
10/10/2008
02/10/2008
-
-
14502/04
NELYUBIN
26/03/2007
RUR 145 836,00
-
-
26/06/2007
13/07/2007
Paid
-
3447/06
Nikolay ZAYTSEV
18/05/2010
-
2 000,00
8,00
18/08/2010
19/07/2010
-
-
38103/04
NIKOLENKO
26/06/2009
-
3 000,00
1 500,00
26/09/2009
11/09/2009
-
-
9549/05
PANASENKO
01/07/2010
-
3 000,00
-
01/10/2010
22/10/2010
Paid
-
44543/04
PAROLOV
30/01/2008
-
2 000,00
-
30/04/2008
19/03/2008
-
-
7061/02
PETROV
21/03/2007
-
-
-
21/06/2007
-
-
-
4874/03
PITELIN AND OTHERS
14/09/2007
-
8 000,00
-
14/12/2007
31/10/2007
-
-
24247/04
PRISYAZHNIKOVA AND DOLGOPOLOV
28/12/2006
-
4 800,00
-
28/03/2007
20/02/2007
-
-
30422/03
PSHENICHNYY
07/07/2008
8 443,00
2 000,00
-
07/10/2008
22/07/2008
-
-
31799/08
PUGACH AND OTHERS
04/02/2011
-
24 000,00
-
04/05/2011
16/05/2011
Paid
-
60974/00
ROSELTRANS
21/10/2005
-
-
-
21/01/2006
-
-
-
52854/99
RYABYKH
03/12/2003
-
-
-
03/03/2004
-
-
-
15037/05
SAKHAROVA
02/05/2013
-
-
-
02/08/2013
-
-
-
47388/06
SAMAROV
28/05/2014
-
2 000,00
-
28/08/2014
27/07/2014
-
-
32865/06
SENCHENKO AND OTHERS AND 35 OTHER “YAKUT PENSIONERS” CASES
06/11/2009
178,000
06/02/2010
Between 16/12/2009 and 21/12/2009 to some applicants; 18/03/2010 (Mr Kim); 19/07/2010 (Ms Ananyeva)
Paid where required; n/a in the case of Ms Ananyeva (the applicant submitted her bank account details after the payment deadline)
-
30731/03
SEPTA
15/05/2007
-
-
-
15/08/2007
-
-
-
12793/02
SEREGINA
28/02/2007
70 000,00
1 400,00
300,00
28/05/2007
11/05/2007
-
-
1861/05
SERGEY PETROV
10/08/2007
2 500,00
2 000,00
-
10/11/2007
19/11/2007
Not significant (EUR 9.04 not paid)
-
28309/03
SERGEYEV AND OTHERS
06/03/2012
255 206,00
36 000,00
1 737,00
06/06/2012
01/10/2012
Paid
-
21834/05
SHANOVY
07/02/2012
4 750,00
3 000,00
100,00
07/05/2012
30/05/2012
Paid
-
34248/05
SHAPKIN AND OTHERS
15/03/2016
5 000,00
15/06/2016
01/06/2016 (Mr Kulnev -date of last invitation to the applicant to submit his bank account details)
-
-
40713/04
SHCHUROV
29/06/2011
-
3 000,00
-
29/09/2011
05/09/2011
-
-
7873/09
SHEYMAN
21/06/2016
36 337,00
6 000,00
-
21/09/2016
28/09/2016
Not significant (EUR 7.59 not paid)
-
2982/05
SHURYGINA AND OTHERS
15/03/2016
10 000,00
-
15/06/2016
Between 21/09/2016 and 22/09/2016
Paid
-
55531/00
SITKOV
18/04/2007
-
-
-
18/07/2007
16/07/2007
-
-
38585/04
SIZINTSEVA
08/07/2010
16 891,00
15 000,00
99,00
08/10/2010
22/10/2010
Paid
-
73203/01
SMARYGIN
01/03/2006
-
-
1 000,00
01/06/2006
18/05/2006
-
-
30672/03
SOBELIN AND OTHERS
03/08/2007
-
-
-
03/11/2007
-
-
-
8564/02
STANISLAV VOLKOV
15/06/2007
-
-
2 000,00
15/09/2007
10/09/2007
-
-
878/03
STETSENKO
05/01/2007
1 700,00
4 000,00
185,00
05/04/2007
30/03/2007
-
-
8269/02
SUTYAZHNIK
10/12/2009
-
500,00
-
10/03/2010
25/03/2010
Not significant (EUR 0.98 not paid)
-
24559/04
TALYSHEVA
22/03/2010
-
3 000,00
-
22/06/2010
24/01/2011
n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline)
-
11093/07
TARNOPOLSKAYA
28/06/2010
102 828,00
-
60 000,00
28/09/2010
17/11/2010
Paid
-
4596/02
TAYANKO
02/12/2010
2 328,00
3 000,00
300,00
02/03/2011
07/06/2011
Paid
-
22551/06
TKACHEV
11/03/2009
-
3 000,00
-
11/06/2009
01/06/2009
-
-
43327/02
TSAREVA
01/07/2010
-
3 000,00
-
01/10/2010
22/10/2010
Paid
-
66543/01
VASILYEV
12/04/2006
230,00
500,00
-
12/07/2006
06/06/2006
-
-
48758/99
VOLKOVA
05/07/2005
-
3 000,00
744,00
05/10/2005
01/09/2005
-
-
44381/04
VOTINTSEVA
11/05/2010
-
3 000,00
-
11/08/2010
15/09/2010
Paid
-
43166/04
YAKOVLEVA
10/07/2014
-
2 000,00
-
10/10/2014
07/10/2015
-
-
21594/05
YELISEYEV
28/05/2014
-
2 000,00
-
28/08/2014
17/12/2014
n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline)
-
69341/01
Yuriy ROMANOV
15/02/2006
160,00
500,00
-
15/05/2006
02/05/2006
-
-
23333/05
ZALEVSKAYA
28/06/2010
-
3 000,00
484,47
28/09/2010
15/09/2010
-
-
67051/01
ZASURTSEV
27/07/2006
-
-
RUR 23,280
27/10/2006
23/10/2006
-
-
14805/02
ZELENKEVICH AND OTHERS
20/06/2013
-
-
-
20/09/2013
-
-
-
25448/06
ZVEZDIN
14/09/2007
-
4 300,00
-
14/12/2007
07/11/2007
-
-
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy