FIRST SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 21 March 2011
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 7120/03
Lidiya Sergeyevna LUNINA and Others
against Russia
(see annex for other applications)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy 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 the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Russian nationals. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated below.
Ms A. Issayeva, Ms M. Khabarova, Ms T. Yakovleva and Mr K. Mokhnatkin died after lodging their applications under Article 34 of the Convention. Their successors Mr I. Zhukov, Ms N. Khabarova, Ms N. Sokolova and Ms N. Makhnatkina, respectively, indicated their interest in pursuing the proceedings.
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 sued the State authorities in domestic courts for payment of various monetary sums due under the Russian law. The courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay various amounts in the form of lump sums and/or of periodic payments to be upgraded in line with the inflation in the country. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement.
In particular, on 27 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded Ms Grigorenko’s mother, who had died in September 2000, a certain amount for indexation of her pension (application no. 14218/06). The Government stated that Ms Grigorenko had obtained her inheritance certificate on 23 November 2005 and submitted it together with the writ of execution shortly thereafter. The judgment was enforced on 20 December 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour and, in certain cases, of assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the judicial or enforcement proceedings.
THE LAW
I. LOCUS STANDI
The Court takes note of certain applicants’ death and of the interest of their successors in pursuing the proceedings.
The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX). Furthermore, in some cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006).
The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the cases referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights the applicants sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). The Government did not contend that any of the successors mentioned above had no standing to pursue the cases. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicants’ successors have a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications.
II. COMPLAINTS OF NON-ENFORCEMENT
Regarding Ms Grigorenko’s complaint of delayed enforcement of the judgment of 27 November 2000, the Court takes cognisance of the Government’s submissions and is satisfied that it was the applicant’s responsibility to inform the State of her status as heir to the deceased claimant with an award against the State. The Court considers that in this situation the State cannot bear responsibility for the delay in the payment of the award (see Ziabreva v. Russia, no. 23567/06, § 21, 18 December 2008). Accordingly, this complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
As to the other applications, following the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above the Government informed the Court of the payment of the domestic court awards in the applicants’ favour and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged in various but very similar terms that judgments in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in a timely manner (e.g. “the excessive duration of the enforcement”, “the delay in the enforcement” or “the lengthy enforcement”). They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums tabulated below. The remainder of the declarations read as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The [sums tabulated below], which [are] to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. [They] 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 European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay [these sums] within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on [them] 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.”
Some applicants agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. Others failed to reply. A majority disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient.
The Court reiterates that under Article 37 of the Convention it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under (a), (b), or (c) of that Article.
Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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.”
Article 37 § 1 in fine states:
“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 its pilot judgment (Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), cited above) it ordered the Russian Federation to
“grant [adequate and sufficient] redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, 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 the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications [had been] communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court.”
In the same judgment the Court also held that:
“pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court [would] adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, the proceedings in all cases concerning solely the non-enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the State authorities, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention.”
Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 127 and 145 and point 7 of the operative part).
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants’ favour is acknowledged by the Government either explicitly or in substance. The Court also notes that the compensations offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delays in each particular case (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 99 and 154).
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 and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications.
Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour are concerned, the applications should be struck out of the list.
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 of the Convention (see the Committee’s decisions of 14-15 September 2009 (CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065) and Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)1 58 concerning the implementation of the Burdov (no. 2) judgment). 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 the list of cases (see E.G. v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008‑... (extracts)).
III. OTHER COMPLAINTS
Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles of the Convention. However, 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 they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or 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;
Declares the complaint of non-enforcement made by Ms L. Grigorenko inadmissible;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations;
Decides to strike the applications in respect of non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour out of its list of cases;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
André WampachSverre Erik Jebens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
ANNEX
No
Application No
Last name
Forename
Born
Compensation offered (euros)
7120/03
LUNINA
BARKALOVA
CHERNYSHOVA
DAMARAD
DAVYDOVA
GLADILOVA
ISSAYEVA
KALAYEVA
KHABAROVA
KHVOSTOVA
MALKHOVA
MAMONOVA
PLOTNIKOVA
SAMSONOVA
SELIVANOVA
SHUMILINA
SVIRIDOV
YERINA
ZABALUYEVA
LIDIYA SERGEYEVNA
LIDIYA MITROFANOVNA
OLGA MIKHAYLOVNA
BORIS ALEKSANDROVICH
ANASTASIYA IVANOVNA
GALINA SERGEYEVNA
ALEKSANDRA PAVLOVNA
RAISA ILYINICHNA
MARIYA ILYINICHNA
ANNA SEMENOVNA
ZOYA NIKOLAYEVNA
TAMARA ANDREYEVNA
LIDIYA VYACHESLAVOVNA
VALENTINA GRIGORYEVNA
MARIYA VASILYEVNA
TATYANA VASILYEVNA
GENNADIY MIKHAYLOVICH
YELENA PETROVNA
NATALYA SERGEYEVNA
1958
1940
1952
1957
1940
1944
1929
1949
1933
1940
1938
1944
1960
1943
1939
1945
1932
1955
1953
1,800
2,100
2,000
1,500
2,150
850
1900
1,700
2,300
2,150
1,800
1,800
2,300
2,000
2,000
2,100
1,980
1,900
1,600
34436/04
MOROZ
YAKOVLEVA
SELEZNEV
RAIDA VIKTOROVNA
TATYANA PETROVNA
YURIY IVANOVICH
1936
1934
1940
2,500
2,600
2,500
39945/04
KRAVCHENKO
ALEKSANDR ANTONOVICH
1941[1]
3,000
2107/05
KURZHALOV
OLEG PETROVICH
1954
610
3453/05
TURMANOV
TARIYEL NIKOLAYEVICH
1949[2]
2,456
4249/05
MAKSIM
ANDREY ANDREYEVICH
1981
1,100
4523/05
PETUKHOV
ANATOLIY ALEKSANDROVICH
1949
2,905
4943/05
SANIN
VIKTOR ALEKSANDROVICH
1956
1,584
12254/05
KOSYGIN
VYACHESLAV FEDOROVICH
1948
785
13094/05
DUBRAVIN
NIKOLAY GRIGORYEVICH
1949
2,904
18611/05
GERASIMENKO
GALINA VASILYEVNA
1945
1,760
22256/05
NOSKOV
ROMAN VIKTOROVICH
1961
2,670
22668/05
MILKEVICH
YURIY STANISLAVOVICH
1957
1,640
31957/05
MARTIROSYAN
EDVART NAPOLEONOVICH
1956
766
33595/05
KUNDYUSOV
ANDREY IVANOVICH
1962
966
36458/05
PUSTOVAROV
ANDREY VLADIMIROVICH
1972
2,970
38083/05
ANDREYTSEVA
CHERNENKO
GALINA ALEKSANDROVNA
GALINA GRIGORYEVNA
1955
1955
1,087
1,087
42513/05
VOBLIKOV
VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH
1948
620
2060/06
FEDOREY
ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH
1958
2,430
4138/06
USHAKOVA
NADEZHDA NIKOLAYEVNA
1957
3,925
4158/06
SALMENKOVA
GALINA RUFOVNA
1960
1,572
14218/06
GUBINA
NOVIKOVA
ZHIGULINA
KARPOVA
GRIGORENKO
TAMARA AFANASYEVNA
VALENTINA VASILYEVNA
PELAGEYA ALEKSEYEVNA
LIDIYA IVANOVNA
LIDIYA NIKOLAYEVNA
1934
1931
1935
1941
1934
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Declared inadmissible
15400/06
GREKOVA
OLGA PAVLOVNA
1968
2,609
18363/06
SAZONOV
SERGEY ANATOLYEVICH
1958
3,955
28225/06
GADZHIYEV
OMAR DZHABRAILOVICH
1961
2,000
31401/06
YERMOLAYEV
VLADIMIR SEMENOVICH
1953
990
42611/06
ZAO LIZINGOVAYA KOMPANIYA ‘GEOLIZING’
1,628
44973/06
SEMITKOVSKIY
LAPIK
SOKOLENKO
KRAMARENKO
SHCHEGELSKIY
ALCHINSKIY
VITALIY GRIGORYEVICH
ALEKSEY LEONIDOVICH
IGOR VLADIMIROVICH
DMITRIY ANATOLYEVICH
NIKOLAY NIKOLAYEVICH
NIKOLAY ANATOLYEVICH
1957
1953
1964
1967
1962
1960
1,553
2,096
1,778
1,743
1,447
1,592
45414/06
TSAPENKO
GEORGIY GEORGIYEVICH
1950
650
2258/07
ANTOSHKIV
NADEZHDA ALEKSANDROVNA
1937
835
5669/07
KONSTANTINOV
MIKHAIL VASILYEVICH
1956
5,000
5672/07
LOSEVA
LYUBOV YAKOVLEVNA
1950
700
11344/07
YEVSENOCHKIN
VLADIMIR PAVLOVICH
1946
804
14538/07
MAKHNATKINA
NINA YEVGENYEVNA
1935
1,610
19514/07
PRIKHODCHENKO
NIKOLAY GRIGORYEVICH
1951
857
19651/07
GORSKAYA
NATALIYA MIKHAYLOVNA
1946
927
25181/07
BAZAYEVA
BARSEGYANTS
DOROKHOV
GAZZAYEV
KIRICHENKO
KOBLOV
KOLIYEV
KORAYEV
KRAVCHENKO
KULUMBEKOV
PAVLIOSHVILI
POSYAKIN
SAFIBEKOV
TIGIYEV
TOMAYEV
ZHITNIK
SVETLANA FEDOROVNA
AVETIS SARKISOVICH
SERGEY NIKOLAYEVICH
VIKTOR KAZBEKOVICH
IGOR STANISLAVOVICH
FELIKS CHERMENOVICH
ALAN KHASANBEKOVICH
ANATOLIY PAVLOVICH
SERGEY NIKOLAYEVICH
VALERIY GAVRILOVICH
GELA SHAVLOVICH
DMITRIY VALENTINOVICH
ZANGIR KHALIDDIN-OGLY
RUSLAN ANDREYEVICH
OLEG IRAKLIYEVICH
SOSLAN YEVGENYEVICH
1957
1959
1956
1970
1973
1966
1967
1955
1965
1963
1967
1955
1969
1961
1953
1969
1,460
1,370
1,600
1,750
1,450
1,600
1,320
1,780
1,350
1,650
1,350
3,000
1,670
1,470
1,550
1,600
30260/07
BUGLEYEV
OLEG ALEKSEYEVICH
1952
2,200
35007/07
TATARSHAO
AMIR KHADZHIBIYEVICH
1952
1,394
36894/07
RESIN
ANDREY IGOREVICH
1974
2,467
37004/07
BELYANIN
ANATOLIY VASILYEVICH
1948
820
44866/07
BULATOV
NIKOLAY ILYICH
1939
835
56480/07
YERIN
SERGEY VASILYEVICH
1963
900
10318/08
ROZHKOV
VLADIMIR VASILYEVICH
1955
3,600
12376/08
KALOYEV
TAYMURAZ MAISEYEVICH
1981
2,800
16247/08
LISITSKAYA
ANNA MIKHAYLOVNA
1931
5,000
20802/08
LEDENTSOV
GENNADIY YEVGENYEVICH
1939
500
20806/08
SHAYEKHOV
YANAGAYEV
ISKANDER MINNEKHANOVICH
ALEKSEY DMITRIYEVICH
1953
1987
1,150
1,150
22165/08
KOLKHITOVA
ANDZELINA KAZBEKOVNA
1969
3,400
30626/08
KOCHKINA
IDEYA IVANOVNA
1936
1,020
30632/08
SOKOL
BORIS MIRONOVICH
1944
870
32219/08
KOPCHENKO
ZINAIDA IVANOVNA
1943
860
32221/08
MITROFANOVA
NADEZHDA IVANOVNA
1950
880
32225/08
KOCHKIN
VLADIMIR FEDOROVICH
1936
1,050
40332/08
PETRAKI
VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH
1982
3,000
59373/08
SHERIYEV
KHABAS MUKHAMEDOVICH
1975
3,900
8421/09
SHAMANAYEVA
TATYANA YEVGENYEVNA
1950
3,010
[1] Rectified on 21 March 2011 : the text was “1954”
[2] Rectified on 21 March 2011 : the text was “1954”
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy