FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16059/04
by Mikhail Viktorovich CHIBISOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 February 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
George Nicolaou,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 March 2004,
Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Mikhail Viktorovich Chibisov, a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Kirov, Kaluga Region. 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 case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant, a former participant of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster relief operation, brought several sets of proceedings against the authorities claiming adjustment of the social-insurance allowances due to him.
The judgments in the applicant’s favour were rendered by the Kirov Town Court of the Kaluga Region (“the Town Court”) on 11 December 2002, 1 and 3 October 2003, 14 April 2004 and 30 March 2006.
The judgment of 11 December 2002 was upheld on appeal by the Kaluga Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) and thus became binding on 3 April 2003. It was enforced on 11 December 2003.
The judgment of 1 October 2003 was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court and thus became binding on 17 November 2003. It was enforced on 1 December 2006.
The judgment of 3 October 2003 providing for monthly payments was not appealed against and thus became binding on 14 October 2003. It is not clear whether it had been fully enforced until it was set aside by the Town Court on 29 September 2005 due to newly-discovered circumstances upon the applicant’s request.
The judgment of 14 April 2004 providing for monthly payments was not appealed against and thus became binding ten days thereafter. It is not clear whether it had been fully enforced until it was set aside by the Town Court on 26 February 2006 due to newly-discovered circumstances upon the applicant’s request.
The judgment of 30 March 2006 was not appealed against and thus became binding ten days thereafter. It was fully enforced in December 2008.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments in his favour.
He also raised a number of auxiliary complaints under Articles 6, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. Following the pilot judgment (Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia, no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...), the Government submitted a declaration of 16 July 2010. They acknowledged “the lengthy enforcement” of the Town Court’s judgments of 1 and 3 October 2003, 14 April 2004 and 30 March 2006 (“the four judgments”) in the applicant’s favour. They also declared their intention to pay the applicant a sum of 4,000 euros (EUR) “as just satisfaction”. The remainder of their declaration was as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
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 [Convention]. 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”.
The applicant did not submit any comments on the Government’s declaration.
The Court reiterates that under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention it is empowered 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”.
The Court recalls that it ordered the Russian Federation to grant redress to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of judgment debts in their favour who had lodged their applications with the Court before 15 January 2009 (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 144-145).
Having examined the terms of the Government’s declaration in the present case, the Court understands it as intending to give the applicant redress in line with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment.
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the enforcement of the four judgments in the applicant’s favour is acknowledged by the Government. It also notes that the amount of compensation offered is comparable with the awards of the Court in similar cases.
Finally, the Court is satisfied that the four judgments either have been finally enforced or are no longer in force having been quashed upon the applicant’s own requests.
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue the examination of the present complaint (see Sobol and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 11373/03 et al., 24 June 2010).
Accordingly, in so far as the complaint about delayed enforcement of the four judgments in the applicant’s favour is concerned, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings contained in their above-cited declaration of 16 July 2010, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the matter in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention within the context of supervision over enforcement of the pilot judgment. In any event, the Court’s present ruling is without prejudice to its power to restore the application to its list of cases if need arises (Article 37 § 2 of the Convention).
2. The applicant further complained about belated enforcement of the Town Court’s judgment of 11 December 2002. The Court observes that this judgment which had become binding on 3 April 2003 was enforced on 11 December 2003, that is slightly more than eight months thereafter. The Court agrees with the Government that this duration in the circumstances was not unreasonable. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3. As to the applicant’s remaining complaints, 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 did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows therefore that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as the complaint about delayed enforcement of the judgments of 1 October 2003, 3 October 2003, 14 April 2004 and 30 March 2006;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy