FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14827/03
by Olga Valentinovna LIPATOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S.Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 March 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Olga Valentinovna Lipatova, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in the Ivanovo Region. The respondent Government are 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.
1. First judgment in the applicant’s favour
On an unspecified date the applicant brought a court action against the Welfare Office of the Pestyakovskiy District of the Ivanovo Region. She sought to recover arrears in payment of child benefits and to index-link them.
On 28 January 2002 the Pestyakovskiy District Court of the Ivanovo Region granted her claim and awarded her RUR 8,186 (approximately EUR 230). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 8 February 2002. On the same date the court issued a writ of execution.
On 1 August 2005 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment of 28 January 2002 had been enforced on 26 January 2004.
2. Second judgment in the applicant’s favour
On an unspecified date the applicant brought a court action against the Welfare Office for indexation of arrears recovered by the judgment of 28 January 2002.
On 20 April 2004 the Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Pestyakovskiy District of the Ivanovo Region acknowledged that there had been a delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 28 January 2002 and recovered penalties in the amount of RUR 3,179 (approximately EUR 88). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 1 May 2004.
On 11 May 2004 the Justice of the Peace issued a writ of execution.
On 19 May 2004 the Bailiff of the Frunzenskiy District of Ivanovo initiated enforcement proceedings. By the date of the lodging of the application with the Court the judgment of 20 April 2004 remained non-executed.
3. Domestic settlement
On 12 December 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment of 20 April 2004 had been enforced in full on 19 September 2005.
On 14 June 2006 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had accepted an offer in settlement of her application, namely the amount of EUR 88 in compensation for the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 20 April 2004 and legal costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The Government invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. They enclosed a copy of a friendly settlement agreement dated 28 April 2006 and signed by an official representing the Government and the applicant. Its relevant party, as translated from Russian, provides as follows:
“The Department of Finance of the Ivanovo Region represented by Mr A.P. Gruznov, the head of the department, and Ms Olga Valentinovna Lipatova, the applicant, reached an agreement ...on the following terms:
(a) Under the present agreement the Department of Finance of the Ivanovo Region shall pay the applicant EUR 88 in compensation for a delay in the enforcement of the final judgment as well as in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the European Court [of Human Rights]. The indicated amount shall be converted in Russian roubles on the rate applicable on the date of payment and free of any taxes. It will be payable within three months following the decision of the European Court [of Human Rights] in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. The said payment will constitute the final settlement of the case.
(b) Ms Olga Valentinovna Lipatova declares that she has no more claims against Russian Federation on the facts submitted in her application in the European Court, provided that the provisions of paragraph (a) are satisfied.
Once the provisions of paragraph (a) are satisfied, the Department of Finance of the Ivanovo Region and the applicant undertake to inform the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights thereof.
The present agreement constitutes the final settlement of the dispute. The applicant undertakes not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.”
On 19 June 2006 the Court transmitted a copy of the above agreement to the applicant and invited her to formally confirm that she had accepted the settlement in question and would not further pursue her application.
On 11 July 2006 the applicant submitted that she wished to withdraw the friendly settlement agreement and requested the Court not to join it to the case file. She informed the Court that she intended to pursue her application and asked to refer the case to the Grand Chamber.
COMPLAINTS
Without invoking any particular Article of the Convention or its Protocols the applicant complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgment of the Pestyakovskiy District Court of the Ivanovo Region of 28 January 2002 and about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Pestyakovskiy District of the Ivanovo Region of 20 April 2004.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant does not want to withdraw her application. Nevertheless, the Court will examine whether the circumstances call for the striking the case out of the list, as the Government suggested.
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
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
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 recalls that in the recent cases Paritchi v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 54396/00, 1 March 2005) and Podbolotova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 26091/02, 24 November 2005) it made recourse to Article 37 § 1 (c) in the situations where the applicants first settled their cases at the domestic level but then disagreed to regard their case settled and insisted on the examination of their applications. The Court sees no reason to depart from this practice in the present case. It considers that, in the circumstances of the case, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
The Court takes note of the settlement reached between the parties, the authenticity of the respective agreement having not been contested by the applicant.
Against this background, the Court is satisfied that the settlement in the present case is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy