THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26285/06
Konstantin Anatolyevich MITIN against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, 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 v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009),
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on various dates requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to these declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are all Russian nationals. Their details appear in the Appendix.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants obtained court decisions awarding them monetary sums against the State, as detailed in the Appendix. Those decisions in the applicants’ favour became final and enforceable, but the State delayed their enforcement.
All applications were lodged with the Court before 15 January 2009, the date of the delivery of the pilot judgment (Burdov (no. 2), cited above).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
Some applicants also made accessory complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
THE LAW
Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them.
By letters of different dates (see the Appendix) the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues of delayed enforcement. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. They stated their readiness to pay the sums listed in the Appendix as just satisfaction to the applicants. The remainder of the declarations provided as follows:
“The Government 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 set out in the Appendix], 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 and will be converted into the national currency of the Russian Federation at the rate applicable at the date of payment. [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 periods plus three percentage points.
[These payments] will constitute the final resolution of [the cases].”
The applicants either did not provide any comments on the unilateral declarations, or disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Some applicants insisted on the examination of their applications on the merits.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article.
It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.
Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention 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 applications”.
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.”
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law.
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of the judgments in the applicants’ favour has been acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensation amounts offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific enforcement delays in each particular case.
Insofar as several applicants contest the execution modalities, the Court reiterates that such grievances must be first and foremost submitted to domestic courts, which are better placed than the Court to ascertain the compliance with the Russian law in this area, including the methods of calculation of the compensations and specific index‑linking requirements provided therein (see Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 and 15 others, 5 February 2009, and Sirotin v. Russia (dec.), no. 38712/03, 14 September 2006).
As to whether the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires the Court to continue the examination of the applications, it notes that in a number of analogous cases the Court found that it was not required to continue the examination the applications in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine (see Mikheyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 36933/07 and 6 others, 24 March 2015, and Sultanova and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 16200/07 and 11 others, 15 April 2014). The Court does not see any reason to depart from that approach in the present cases.
In view of the above, in so far as the complaints about the delayed enforcement of the judgements in the applicants’ favour are concerned, it is appropriate to strike that part of the applications out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
As for the applicants’ accessory complaints referring to various Articles of the Convention, 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 these parts of the applications 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;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations;
Decides to strike the part of the applications concerning the complaints about the delayed enforcement out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2017.
Fatoş AracıBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application No.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Representative
Final domestic decision details and amounts awarded in Russian roubles (RUB)
Enforcement date
Enforcement delay
Date of unilateral declaration
Remedial offer in euros
26285/06
01/06/2006
Konstantin Anatolyevich MITIN
14/07/1981
Moscow
Represented by:
Aleksandr Vladimirovich MOLOKHOV
On 19 March 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan ordered the provision of a municipal housing to an orphan, which was replaced by the monetary compensation RUB 518,686.69 on 22 April 2005. The judgment entered into force on 30 March 2004.
06/05/2006
2 years 1 month 6 days
08/09/2015
2,062
42567/06
07/09/2006
Khidirnabi Yakhyayevich SHABANOV
18/02/1955
Makhachkala
On 18 July 2005 the Military Court of the Makhachkala Garrison awarded the applicant certain payments for military service. The judgment entered into force on 28 September 2005 and amended on 28 November 2006.
04/12/2006
1 year 2 months 6 days
09/09/2015
664
39006/08
11/06/2008
Ivan Aleksandrovich ANUFRIYEV
12/07/1983
Arkhonskaya
On 26 August 2004 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison awarded the applicant compensation for participation in military conflict. The judgment entered into force on 7 September 2004.
26/10/2011
7 years 1 month 19 days
23/01/2014
4,498
49721/08
18/08/2008
Mariya Ivanovna NIKITINA
09/08/1954
Gremyachinsk
On 12 February 2008 the Gremyachinskiy Town Court of the Perm Region awarded the applicant RUB 2,578,500 in compensation for a flat acquisition. The judgment came into force on 15 April 2008.
15/02/2010
1 year 10 months
09/09/2015
1,159
24953/14
21/06/2007
Nikolay Nikolayevich LAPOTNIKOV
24/05/1979
Orekhovo-Zuyevo
On 29 January 2004 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison awarded the applicant certain payments for military service. The judgment came into force on 10 February 2004.
30/07/2010
6 years 5 months 20 days
09/09/2015
3,625
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy