THIRD SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 18 May 2018
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
Application no. 8431/06
Sergey Sergeyevich KHROMOV against Russia
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI)).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 February 2018.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
8431/06
07/02/2006
Sergey Sergeyevich Khromov
24/05/1959
16/05/2016
4,700
26661/10
10/03/2010
Petr Vladimirovich Belenko
05/12/1963
30/09/2016
6,500
892/11
22/12/2010
Muradkhan Kutbudinovich Khanmagomedov
26/02/1971
13/07/2016
14/11/2016
6,370
8328/11
22/12/2010
Gazikhma Zayirbegovich Islamov[2]
01/05/1969
13/07/2016
6,370
35818/11
19/04/2011
Inna Aleksandrovna Nechayeva
01/01/1982
01/07/2016
1,620
46643/11
26/05/2011
Oleg Igorevich Popov
20/05/1962
01/07/2016
1,500
51447/11
10/07/2011
Vladimir Mikhaylovich Bologov
17/07/1950
01/07/2016
1,560
64390/11
03/10/2011
Aleksey Albertovich Lukoshkov
01/07/2016
6,270
67670/13
20/09/2013
Galina Nikolayevna Busareva
17/08/1988
19/01/2016
1,960
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2]. Rectified on 18 May 2018: the text was "Mr Gazikhma Zayirbekovich Islamov”.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy