FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1467/06
Tatyana Ivanovna GERASIMOVA against Russia
and 11 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009),
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on various dates 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:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are all Russian nationals. Their details appear in the appendix.
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 have obtained court decisions awarding them monetary sums to be paid by the State, as detailed below. Those decisions in the applicants’ favour became final and enforceable but the State delayed their enforcement.
All applications were lodged with the Court before 15 January 2009, the date of the delivery of the pilot judgment (Burdov (no. 2), cited above).
1. Application no. 1467/06 was lodged with the Court by Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Gerasimova.
On 16 April 2003 the applicant was awarded compensation in the amount of 860.18 Russian roubles (RUB) in relation to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster by the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region. The decision became final on 26 April 2003 and was enforced on 7 November 2006.
2. Application no. 6272/06 was lodged with the Court by Yuriy Vasilyevich Podyapolskiy.
On 11 March 2004 the applicant was awarded by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov various compensations in relation to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the following amounts: RUB 4,563.41, RUB 404.80 (the sums to be paid monthly as of 1 March 2004) and RUB 674.67 (to be paid annually), RUB 620.92, and RUB 55.08. On 11 March 2004 the same court increased the amounts of the monthly compensations up to RUB 10,508.25 and RUB 1,864.12 respectively and awarded those compensations arrears in the following amounts: RUB 190,472, RUB 73,070.68 and RUB 10,210.09. The decision became final on 22 March 2004 and was enforced on 29 November 2007.
On 18 March 2004 the applicant was awarded by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov RUB 17,035.69 to be paid by the social insurance body of Tambov. The judgment became final on 29 March 2004 and was enforced on 16 December 2004.
3. Application no. 9846/06 was lodged with the Court by Viktor Yakovlevich Malyshev.
On 11 October 2004 the Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan awarded the applicant RUB 150,500 and RUB 50,000 as compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in relation to the non-payment of his salary. The decision became final on 14 February 2005 and was enforced on 26 December 2006.
4. Application no. 12472/06 was lodged with the Court by Antonina Yakovlevna Ozarchuk.
On 31 July 2003 the Neryingry Town Court awarded the applicant compensation for the failure to make payment under special State-issued payment document in the amount of RUB 72,942.67. By the decision of the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic of 19 May 2004 the amount was decreased to RUB 35,700.52. The decision became final on the same date and was enforced on 6 April 2006.
5. Application no. 41468/06 was lodged with the Court by Aleksandr Ivanovich Glushchenko.
On 15 September 2005 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow awarded the applicant RUB 448,567.24 in arrears in social payments and monthly payments as of 1 October 2005 in the amount of RUB 18,270 in relation to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The decision became final on 27 September 2005 and was enforced on 17 November 2006.
6. Application no. 1135/07 was lodged with the Court by Vladimir Yakovlevich Mogilnikov.
On 24 March 2006 the Pervouralskiy Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region awarded the applicant the monthly payments of RUB 23,126.51 and arrears in social payments. By the decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of 23 May 2006 the judgment was amended: the amount of the monthly payments was changed to RUB 14,094.56 and the part related to the awarded arrears was quashed and the case sent for a fresh examination in the respective part. The monthly payments are being paid to the applicant regularly as of September 2006.
The fresh examination of the case in the part related to the arrears payment was held by the Pervouralskiy Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region, which by its judgment of 20 June 2006 awarded the applicant RUB 403,926.69. The decision became final on 11 July 2006 and was enforced on 31 December 2007.
7. Application no. 4342/07 was lodged with the Court by Petr Grigoryevich Selin.
On 22 May 2006 the applicant was awarded by the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region RUB 193,881.13 in arrears in social payments and monthly payments as of 1 January 2006 in the amount of RUB 9,587.33 in relation to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The decision became final on 11 July 2006 and was enforced on 29 November 2007.
8. Application no. 8075/07 was lodged with the Court by Svetlana Ivanovna Valina.
On 12 July 2001 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant RUB 4,626.68 in arrears related to child allowance. The decision became final on 24 July 2001 and was enforced on 18 April 2007.
9. Application no. 15346/07 was lodged with the Court by Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zhurba.
On 25 May 2006 the applicant was awarded by the Zernogradskiy District Court of the Rostov Region RUB 29,088.38 and RUB 3,767.05 in arrears in social payments and monthly payments as of 1 June 2006 in the amount of RUB 1,308.14 in relation to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The decision became final on 5 July 2006 and was enforced on 21 August 2007.
10. Application no. 49566/07 was lodged with the Court by Valeriy Vladimirovich Kartashev.
On 22 September 2003 the applicant was awarded arrears in social payments in the amount of RUB 472.46 by the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 1 of Kostroma. The decision became final on 6 November 2003 and was enforced on 9 December 2010. By the decision of the Sverdlovsk Region Court of 24 January 2010 the applicant was awarded RUB 564.70 as additional indexation of that amount.
On 12 February 2009 the applicant was awarded arrears in compensation for medical treatment and indexation of the arrears in the total amount of RUB 1,731.88. The judgment became final on 2 March 2009 and was enforced on 3 November 2009.
11. Application no. 55269/07 was lodged with the Court by Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Popkov.
On 22 November 2006 the applicant was awarded payeurosments in the amount of RUB 13,774.40 in relation to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and RUB 513.22 in legal costs by the Gorodovikovskiy District Court of the Kalmyk Republic. The decision became final on 3 December 2006 and was enforced on 21 November 2013.
12. Application no. 7919/08 was lodged with the Court by Tatyana Vladimirovna Mamedova.
On 3 April 2007 the applicant was awarded RUB 400,000 in non‑pecuniary damage by the Norilsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region. The decision became final on 27 August 2007 and was enforced on 25 January 2010.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
2. The applicants also made accessory complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of applications
Given that the applications at hand concern similar complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single decision.
B. Non-enforcement complaints
1. Applications nos. 6272/06, 1135/07 and 49566/07 concerning judgments of 18 March 2004, 24 March 2006 and 12 February 2009
The Court will examine the complaints regarding the delayed enforcement of the judgments under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court reiterates at the outset that as from 4 May 2009, the date on which the pilot judgment in Burdov (no. 2) (cited above) became final, it adjourned the adversarial proceedings on all applications lodged with the Court in which the applicants complained of non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by State authorities pending the adoption of domestic remedial measures. However, such adjournment is without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case (ibid., § 146).
The Court also notes that the present cases were communicated to the respondent State on 9 September 2012 and 13 September 2013 with a view to their settlement in line with the above-mentioned pilot judgment.
The Government argued in response that the complaints of the delayed enforcement of the following domestic judgments were inadmissible because they had been enforced within a reasonable time:
(i) in application no. 6272/06 of Mr Podyapolskiy the judgment of 18 March 2004 became final on 29 March 2004 and was enforced within nine months, on 16 December 2004.
(ii) in application no. 1135/07 of Mr Mogilnikov the judgment of 24 March 2006 became final on 23 May 2006 and the respective payments being made on a monthly basis since September 2006.
(iii) in application no. 49566/07 of Mr Kartashev the judgment of 12 February 2009 became final on 2 March 2009 and was enforced within eight months, on 3 November 2009.
Mr Podyapolkiy did not provide any comments in relation to the Government’s submissions concerning the enforcement of the judgment of 18 March 2004.
In this context, Mr Kartashev argued that the State had failed to enforce within a reasonable time other judgments by which the awarded amount had been adjusted, while Mr Mogilnikov contested the methods of the calculation of the sum awarded by the domestic judgment taken in his favour.
The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, it will first look at the time it took the authorities to execute the judgment, the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, and the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
In the present applications, the periods of enforcement of the three judgments listed above were less than a year. Having regard to this fact and the Court’s case-law in similar cases, and taking into account the other circumstances of the present cases, the Court considers that these periods did not fall short of the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009).
In relation to the complaint of Mr Kartashev regarding the State’s failure to enforce within a reasonable time the judgments by which the awarded compensation was adjusted, the Court observes that the adjustment proceedings fall outside the scope of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Aleksentseva and Others v. Russia, nos. 75025/01 et al., § 23, 17 January 2008).
As regards the disagreement of Mr Mogilnikov with the applied calculation methods, the Court recalls that it is not its task to act as an appeal court of “fourth instance” by calling into question the outcome of the domestic proceedings. It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law.
It follows that the complaints raised by the applicants regarding the delayed enforcement of the three judgments listed above are manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. Other non-enforcement complaints
In line with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment, cited above, the Government informed the Court that the other domestic courts judgments in the applicants’ favour had been enforced and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issue of delayed enforcement. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. The remainder of the declarations read as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] 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 [sums tabulated below], which [are] to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. [They] 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 [these sums] within the said three‑month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on [them] 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 applicants either did not provide any comments on the unilateral declarations, or disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Mr Kartashev disagreed with the calculation of the period of the non‑enforcement of the judgments taken in his favour. The Government calculated the periods of the non-enforcement from the moment when the respective decisions had entered into force up to the date when the respective awarded amounts had been paid to the applicant. The applicant contested that the non-enforcement periods should also include other proceedings in which he sought indexation of the awarded amounts and the respective periods of enforcement of the decisions taken in those indexation proceedings.
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.”
Article 37 § 1 in fine states:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court recalls that in its pilot judgment cited above (point 7 of the operative part) it ordered the Russian Federation to:
“... grant [adequate and sufficient] redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a judgment debt in their favour who [had] lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications [had been] communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court.”
In the same judgment the Court also held that (point 8 of the operative part):
“... pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court [would] adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, the proceedings in all cases concerning solely the non-enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the State authorities, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention.”
Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 127 and 145 and point 7 of the operative part).
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of the judgments in the applicants’ favour is explicitly acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensations offered by the Government for non-pecuniary damage are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delays in each particular case (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 99 and 154).
As regards the disagreement of Mr Kartashev with the calculation of the non-enforcement periods, proposed by the Government, the Court dismisses the applicant’s arguments on the following reasons. The applicant sought indexation of the awarded amount after those amounts had been paid to him. This fact, as well as the dates of the payments, is not contested by the applicant. The Court considers that those indexation proceedings should be regarded as separate proceedings and should not be taken into account in relation to the non-enforcement period.
Mr Kartashev also submitted that he had incurred costs and expenses in the amount of RUB 3,000 in the proceedings before the Court. The Court notes that according to the conditions of the unilateral declaration, the compensation was to cover also those costs and that the sum proposed by the Government is sufficient for that purpose.
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications, nor is it required by respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list.
As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention (see the Committee’s decisions of 14-15 September 2009 (CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065) and Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)158 concerning the implementation of the Burdov (no. 2) judgment, cited above). In any event the Court’s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the present applications to the list of cases (see E.G. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
C. Alleged violation of other Convention rights
As for the applicants’ accessory complaints referring to various Articles of the Convention, 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 these parts of the applications 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 join the applications;
Declares that the complaints of delayed enforcement of the judgments of 18 March 2004 in favour of Mr Podyapolskiy, of 24 March 2006 in favour of Mr Mogilnikov and of 12 February 2009 in favour of Mr Kartashev are inadmissible;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the part of the applications concerning the applicants’ complaint about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in question out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 February 2015.
André WampachMirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Delay in enforcement
Unilateral remedial offer (euros)
1467/06
01/12/2005
Tatyana Ivanovna GERASIMOVA
16/08/1942
Novovoronezh
3 years 6 months and 11 days
2,230
6272/06
13/03/2006
Yuriy Vasilyevich PODYAPOLSKIY
25/08/1964
Tambov
3 years 8 months and 7 days
2,320
9846/06
30/01/2006
Viktor Yakovlevich MALYSHEV
07/11/1954
Kazan
1 year 10 months and 10 days
910
12472/06
24/01/2006
Antonina Yakovlevna OZARCHUK
20/01/1965
Neryungri
1 year 10 months and 17 days
920
41468/06
30/06/2006
Aleksandr Ivanovich GLUSHCHENKO
20/10/1943
Moscow
1 year 1 month and 20 days
720
1135/07
11/11/2006
Vladimir Yakovlevich MOGILNIKOV
28/06/1948
Pervouralsk
1 year 5 months and 19 days
930
4342/07
18/12/2006
Petr Grigoryevich SELIN
28/02/1942
Novovoronezh
1 year 4 months and 18 days
875
8075/07
10/02/2007
Svetlana Ivanovna VALINA
21/04/1954
Voronezh
Ilya Vladimirovich SIVOLDAYEV
5 years 8 months and 25 days
2,800
15346/07
14/03/2007
Dmitry Vladimirovich ZHURBA
25/05/1948
Donskoy
1 year 8 months and 27 days
710
49566/07
21/08/2006
Valeriy Vladimirovich KARTASHEV
28/11/1955
Kostroma
7 years 1 month and 4 days
4,472
55269/07
01/11/2007
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich POPKOV
30/04/1981
Gomel
6 years 11 month and 18 days
4,394
7919/08
12/01/2008
Tatyana Vladimirovna MAMEDOVA
02/12/1955
Norilsk
Dmitriy Alekseyevich BOYEV
2 years 4 month and 29 days
1,354
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy