FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36582/04
by Sergey KRISTMAN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Andreyevich Kristman, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in the Orenburg Region. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Melnichenko, a lawyer practising in the Orenburg Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In May 2003 the applicant, a retired military officer, sued the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase of his pension and compensation for pecuniary damage.
On 22 May 2003 the Totskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region allowed the applicant’s action and awarded him 20,569.40 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 568 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 26 June 2003.
In December 2003 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service. The bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings.
On 9 February 2004 the bailiffs’ service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds.
On 16 April 2005 the Military Department transferred the debt into the applicant’s bank account.
On 23 December 2005 the Military Department and the applicant signed a friendly settlement, according to which the applicant was to receive RUR 3,000, free of any taxes or charges. Upon receipt of that amount the applicant would have no claims against the Russian Federation based on the facts of the present application.
On 7 February 2006 the amount of RUR 3,000 was transferred into the applicant’s bank account.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 May 2003.
THE LAW
By letter of 25 February 2006, the applicant’s representative asked the Court not to approve the friendly settlement and not to strike the case out of the list because the applicant had not received compensation for the inflation losses and for costs and expenses. He enclosed the applicant’s hand-written statement to the same effect.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
...
(b) the matter has been resolved;
...
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 notes that on 23 December 2005 the parties reached a settlement at domestic level. There is no indication that the applicant signed it against his will. Moreover, he was represented by a professional lawyer who could have given him appropriate legal advice. The amount indicated in the settlement was credited to the applicant’s bank account in good time.
In these circumstances, the Court does not find any ground to doubt the validity of the settlements reached by the parties and, thus, it considers that the matter was resolved at the domestic level (see Sarkisyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 20812/03, 2 March 2006).
The Court further reiterates that in cases in which it is possible to eliminate the effects of an alleged violation and the Government declare their readiness to do so, the intended redress is more likely to be regarded as appropriate for the purposes of striking out the application, the Court, as always, retaining its power to restore the application to its list as provided in Article 37 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 5 of the Rules of Court (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 76 in fine, ECHR 2004‑III).
Accordingly, being satisfied that the settlement in the present case is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, the Court finds no reason of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy