FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 33991/02, 15177/05, 9768/06, 14194/06, 49674/06, 55308/07, 55310/07, 55316/07, 56334/07, 1418/08, 3188/08, 3201/08, 9470/08 and 39188/08
by Boris Vyacheslavovich KRUTOV and
Nadezhda Vasilyevna KRUTOVA and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...),
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of its list of cases and the applicants' replies to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and years of birth are tabulated in the annex. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the 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.
The applicants obtained final and enforceable domestic judicial decisions awarding to them various monetary sums, payable by the State or from the State funds. The authorities delayed the full enforcement of those binding judgments.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained mainly about the delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable domestic judgments rendered in their favour.
THE LAW
1. Following the pilot judgment in Burdov (no. 2), cited above, the Government informed the Court of the payment of the domestic court awards in the applicants' favour and submitted unilateral declarations. They acknowledged the excessive length of the enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour. They also declared their intention to pay the applicants monetary sums, tabulated in the annex, as just satisfaction in this respect. They went on to invite the Court to strike the cases out of its list of cases. The remainder of their declarations read as follows:
“The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention]. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it from 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.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case”.
While certain applicants agreed with the sum proposed in the Government's declarations in their respective cases, some of them disagreed claiming the amount of monetary just satisfaction offered insufficient.
The Court reiterates that under Article 37 § 1 (c) it is empowered 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”.
The Court recalls that it ordered the Russian Federation to grant redress to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a judgment debt in their favour who had lodged their applications with the Court before 15 January 2009 (Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 144-145).
Having examined the terms of the Government's declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment.
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the enforcement of the final judgments in the applicants' favour is acknowledged by the Government. It also notes that the compensation offered is comparable with Court awards in similar cases.
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications; it is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue the examination of the present applications (see Sobol and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 11373/03 et al., 24 June 2010).
Accordingly, the present applications should be struck out of the Court's list of cases.
As regards the question of implementation of the Government's undertakings, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention (see the Committee's Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)158 of 3 December 2009). In any event the Court's present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the present applications to its list of cases (see Sobol and Others, cited above).
2. Some of the applicants raised some additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols.
In light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence the Court finds that those complaints do not disclose any appearance of violations of the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols.
It follows that the applications in this part are 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;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as the non-enforcement complaints are concerned;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
ANNEX
No.
Surname
First name and patronymics
Year of birth
Amount of compensation offered by the Government
33991/02
KRUTOV
KRUTOVA
Boris Vyacheslavovich
Nadezhda Vasilyevna
1951
1950
EUR 810 (to be paid to the second applicant)
15177/05
NECHAYEV
Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich
1956
EUR 1,400
9768/06
MASLOVICH
Eduard Nikolayevich
1935
EUR 1,983
14194/06
BOBKIN
Ivan Ivanovich
1943
EUR 2,761
49674/06
SAKHAROV
Sergey Borisovich
1937
EUR 1,500
55308/07
MATVEYEV
Sergey Ivanovich
1945
EUR 800
55310/07
ZERNYUKOV
Anatoliy Alekseevich
1940
EUR 900
55316/07
ANIKEYEV
Aleksandr Vasilyevich
1949
EUR 1,000
56334/07
ROMANOV
Valeriy Yevgenyevich
1948
EUR 750
1418/08
DMITRIYEV
Nikolay Pavlovich
1952
EUR 800
3188/08
KHOMENKO
Leonid Yevgenyevich
1957
EUR 800
3201/08
BARSUKOV
Vladimir Valentinovich
1952
EUR 900
9470/08
ZARATUYEV
Aleksey Stepanovich
1954
EUR 3,330
39188/08
KOLTASHEV
Viktor Borisovich
1944
EUR 2,895
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy