THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20129/18
Vladimir Nikolayevich KOROL
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2018,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Mr M.A. Gorshkov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning lack of access to an appeal on account of the late dispatch of the lower courts’ decisions was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
On 15 February 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged that there has been violation of the applicant’s right of access to an appeal court. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case.
On 2 April 2019 the applicant informed the Court about his refusal of the terms of the declaration on the ground that the amount offered by the Court did not cover all damages sustained by him as a result of the violation. He did not, however, provide any further details notably on the nature of the damage sustained nor submitted any specific calculation or referred to any other particular measure.
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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, 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 sufficient case-law concerning complaints relating to access to appeal (see, for example, Ivanova and Ivashova v. Russia, nos. 797/14 and 67755/14, §§ 41-46, 26 January 2017). As regards the applicant’s objection to the terms of the unilateral declaration, it has, in the absence of further details, no reasons to consider that the compensation offered by the Government constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violation of his Convention rights (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v.Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, §§ 49-50, 28 June 2016 and, by contrast, Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration 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 application (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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya MaradudinaDarian Pavli
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(access to cassation)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
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
(in euros)[1]
20129/18
23/04/2018
Vladimir Nikolayevich KOROL
1936
Gorshkov Mikhail Aleksandrovich
Moscow
15/02/2019
02/04/2019
1,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy