FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2812/04
by Valentina Aleksandrovna KOMAROVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
20 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Valentina Aleksandrovna Komarova, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Konstantinovsk of the Rostov Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant brought civil proceedings against the Konstantinovskiy District Social Security Service (Отдел социальной защиты населения Константиновского района) claiming arrears of child benefits due to her.
On 2 August 1999 the Konstantinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claims and awarded her the arrears for the period between 1 October 1996 and 1 February 1999 in the amount of RUR 4,781.71. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13 August 1999.
As successive monthly payments of the benefits had not been effected in full and the judgment of 2 August 1999 had not been promptly enforced, the applicant brought new claims against the local authority requesting arrears of the benefits for the period between 1 February 1999 and 1 February 2000 and interest on the unpaid sum awarded by the judgment of 2 August 1999.
On 18 October 2000 the Konstantinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claims and awarded her RUR 8,251.78. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 29 October 2000.
As the judgments of 2 August 1999 and 18 October 2000 were not enforced in due time, the applicant addressed the court claiming interest on unpaid amount of the judicial awards.
On 28 August 2001 the Konstantinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claims and awarded her interest in the amount of RUR 3,814.61. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 10 September 2001.
On 19 November 2001 the bailiff’s service initiated enforcement proceedings.
The judgment of 2 August 1999 was fully enforced on 17 November 2003, the judgments of 18 October 2000 and 28 August 2001 were fully enforced on 15 December 2003.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments of the Konstantinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region in her favour.
THE LAW
On 1 June 2006 the respondent Government informed the Court that they reached friendly settlement with the applicant. They enclosed a copy of the friendly settlement agreement of 24 May 2006 concluded between the applicant and the Konstantinovskiy District Social Security Service. Under the agreement the Social Security Service undertook to pay the applicant RUR 27,859.28, including RUR 16,848.10 for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by the delay in enforcement of the judgments, RUR 10,278.78 for compensation of pecuniary damage and RUR 732,60 for costs. It was further stipulated that, subject to fulfilment of the above provisions, the applicant had no further claims against either the defendant or other authorities of the Russian Federation in respect of the facts set out in her application before the Court.
In the letter of 9 January 2007 the applicant informed the Court that in August 2006 she had received payments pursuant to the friendly settlement agreement of 24 May 2006 and had no further claims against the Russian Federation. She enclosed a ruling of the Konstantinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region of 24 May 2006 whereby the court approved the friendly settlement.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy