FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 10834/04, 8567/05 and 12680/05
by Antonina Mikhailovna KIRYANOVA 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 (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...),
Having regard to the declarations by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of its list of cases and the applicants' positive replies to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applications were lodged by three Russian nationals. Application no. 10834/04 was lodged by Ms Antonina Mikhailovna Kiryanova, born in 1938, who is resident of Taganrog, Rostov Region. Application no. 8567/05 was lodged by Ms Valentina Mikhaylovna Klochenko, born in 1946, who is resident of Shakhty, Rostov Region. Application no. 12680/05 was lodged by Mr Ivan Aleksandrovich Mukhin, born in 1956, who is resident of Pokrovskoye, Rostov Region. Ms Kiryanova and Mr Mukhin were represented before the Court by Mr A.V. Kiryanov, a lawyer practising in Rostov Region. Ms Klochenko acted pro se before the Court. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
In cases of all the applicants the domestic courts ordered the authorities to provide them with monetary payments of various nature. Those judgments remained however unenforced for long periods of time.
In the case of Ms Kiryanova (no. 10834/04), the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don on 16 March 2001 allowed her claim for pension arrears. That judgment was enforced in June 2006.
In the case of Ms Klochenko (no. 8567/05), the Shakhty Town Court of Rostov Region on 19 October 2004 allowed her claim for child allowance. That judgment was enforced in December 2006.
In the case of Mr Mukhin (no. 12680/05), the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don on 22 July 2003 ordered that the applicant be paid a monthly allowance pending his suspension from work at the Rostov Regional Fisheries Inspectorate in the context of the ongoing criminal proceedings against him on bribery charges.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments in their favour.
Mr Mukhin also complained under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 about various procedural violations which had allegedly taken place in the context of criminal proceedings against him.
THE LAW
1. In September 2010 the Government provided the Court with written declarations acknowledging “the excessive duration of the enforcement” of the domestic judgments in favour of the applicants. The Government further expressed their readiness to pay the following sums to the applicants as just satisfaction: 2,500 euros (EUR) to Ms Kiryanova, EUR 1,080 to Ms Klochenko, and EUR 4,400 to Mr Mukhin. 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”.
In their letters submitted in response the applicants agreed with the
afore-stated sums of monetary compensation proposed in the Government's declarations.
The Court reiterates that under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention 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 amount of compensation offered by the Government was found satisfactory by the applicants and is line with its case-law.
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 applications (see Sobol and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 11373/03 et al., 24 June 2010). Accordingly, they 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 the context of the execution of the pilot judgment in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. 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. In so far as Mr Mukhin's additional complaints are concerned, in the 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 a violation of the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Convention and Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application is 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 applications nos. 10834/04 and 8567/05 in their entirety and application no. 12680/05 in so far as the non-enforcement complaint is concerned out of its list of cases;
Declares the remainder of application no. 12680/05 inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy