FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2355/06
Vladimir Terentyevich KARPENKO against Russia
and 24 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
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 those declarations,
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 two and ten years.
The applicants complained, among other matters, about the length of the proceedings in their cases. In certain cases they also complained of lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of excessive length of the proceedings.
In case no. 44713/08, on 3 August 2011 the applicant’s widower, Kulichikhin Vladimir Vasilyevich, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 21 January 2011. He expressed his intention to continue the proceedings in her stead.
THE LAW
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.
A. Complaints about the length of proceedings
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.
Some applicants disagreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Some of them insisted on the examination of their applications on the merits. Some applicants failed to reply.
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.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of a case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases is acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensations offered are comparable with Court’s awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delays in the proceedings in each particular case. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.
As to whether the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto requires the Court to continue the examination of the present applications it does not see any compelling reason of public order to warrant examination of the present applications on the merits. Firstly, the Court has on numerous occasions determined issues analogous to those arising in the instant cases and ascertained in great detail the States’ obligations under the Convention in that respect (see, among many others, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 131 and 160, ECHR 2000‑XI, and Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, §§ 57 and 64, 29 January 2004). Secondly, on 4 May 2010 the Russian authorities introduced a new domestic remedy against unreasonable length of court proceedings, which was deemed prima facie effective by the Court and now requires to be exhausted (see Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 26716/09 et al., 23 September 2010). As a consequence, an examination on the merits of the present cases would not bring any new element in this regard.
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 (c) of the Convention.
B. Complaints 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 remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings.
The Government did not specify their position in relation to these complaints.
The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduced by the 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 (no. 2) pilot judgment, cited above, 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 in the present case (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).
C. Other complaints
Some applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. Having regard to 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 this part of the applications is 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;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike a part of the applications in respect of the length of proceedings out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 12 March 2015.
André WampachMirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application no
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Compensation
offered (EUR)
2355/06
06/12/2005
Vladimir Terentyevich KARPENKO
10/02/1938
Korolev
3,000
2488/06
07/12/2005
Sergey Nikolayevich GEYGER
13/01/1961
Mezhdurechensk
2,000
2908/06
26/12/2005
Anna Siviryanovna BAYEVA
13/08/1938
Yekaterinburg
Sergey Viktorovich BAYEV
04/04/1961
Yekaterinburg
Tatyana Viktorovna SIDOROVA
26/03/1965
Yekaterinburg
2,800 to each
8162/06
26/01/2006
Vitaliy Sergeyevich ALEKSANDROV
29/08/1940
Zhukovka
2,700
9836/06
27/02/2006
Andrey Ivanovich KOLESNIKOV
03/04/1967
Seversk
Nikolay Veniaminovich KANDYBA
2,200
10564/06
21/02/2006
Vladimir Filippovich STAROKOZHEV
10/07/1941
Moscow
4,000
11275/06
12/03/2006
Yelena Konstantinovna RUMYANTSEVA
18/08/1941
St Petersburg
3,700
14136/06
25/01/2006
Sergey Leonardovich YATSYNO
20/02/1955
Novocherkassk
Aleksandr Sergeyevich YATSYNO
31/12/1986
Novocherkassk
Maksim Sergeyevich YATSYNO
03/12/1981
Novocherkassk
Aleksandra Nikolayevna YATSYNO
27/03/1959
Novocherkassk
2,000 to each
18356/06
10/04/2006
Galina Nikolayevna GANINA
23/11/1946
Nizhniy Novgorod
Igor Aleksandrovich KOCHIN
4,000
29588/06
06/06/2006
Sergey Mikhaylovich KISLOV
01/12/1952
Tver
3,600
32326/06
17/06/2006
Vladimir Aleksandrovich BOLSHAKOV
20/04/1964
Novocherkassk
1,500
32464/06
12/07/2006
Gennadiy KADYROV
12/05/1957
Deputatskiy
2,300
34333/06
21/07/2006
Viktor Gerasimovich KULIKOV
22/05/1936
Voronezh
3,500
34459/06
14/08/2006
Tatyana Yuryevna GAVRILYUK
24/06/1962
St Petersburg
1,800
37236/06
04/07/2006
Nikolay Petrovich SEMENOV
22/09/1952
Nizhniy Novgorod
Yuriy Fedorovich RYCHKOV
3,000
40611/06
25/09/2006
Yelena Nikiforovna TSVETKOVA
30/05/1948
St Petersburg
2,200
45755/06
29/09/2006
Vladimir Vasilyevich DANCHENKO
14/04/1963
St Petersburg
3,500
46730/06
29/09/2006
Nina Pavlovna PLOTNIKOVA
15/03/1939
Birsk
Nurmukhamet Mukhametdinovich GILYAZETDINOV
3,200
49366/06
17/10/2006
Raisa Filippovna TYULINA
29/06/1924
St Petersburg
3,000
50105/06
19/02/2003
Tatyana Gennadyevna BRAGINA
02/08/1941
Yekaterinburg
Anna Valentinovna DEMENEVA
3,000
1652/07
14/11/2006
Varvara Ivanovna YAKOVLEVA
05/12/1926
Kolpino
1,200
2603/07
10/11/2006
Svetlana Shaydiyarovna DIVAYEVA
16/01/1956
Tuymazy
1,500
7344/07
07/02/2007
Aleksandr Andreyevich LOPATIN
21/01/1952
Tula
2,000
18312/07
12/04/2007
Aleksey Yevgenyevich KARLOV
12/10/1955
St Petersburg
4,200
44713/08
23/06/2008
Natalya Ivanovna SHERENESHEVA
31/07/1943
Moscow
2,500
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy