FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 30130/06, 33338/06,
34947/06, 42609/06, 47001/06 and 47034/06
by Valentina Georgiyevna OKHRIMENKO 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,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the procedure provided for by the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia, 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' replies to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applications were lodged by six Russian nationals whose personal details are tabulated in the annex. Each of the applicants acted pro se before the Court. 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.
On 20 March 1995 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk granted the applicants' claims and ordered the authorities to pay purchase price of the automobiles which were supposed to be given to the applicants. The amount of that purchase price was subsequently adjusted on several occasions upon the applicants' motion taking into account the inflation rate. Those final and enforceable judgments remained unenforced for long periods of time.
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.
THE LAW
Following the pilot judgment in Burdov (no. 2), cited above, the Government informed the Court of the enforcement of the domestic judicial decisions in question and submitted unilateral declarations. They acknowledged “the excessive duration of the enforcement” of the final and enforceable judgments in question. They also declared their intention to pay each of the applicants 4,300 euros (EUR) 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”.
In their letters submitted in response the applicants insisted that the amount of compensation should be EUR 10,000 to each of them. They also argued for shortening of the period of payment to one month.
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”.
Having examined the terms of the Government's afore-mentioned 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 question is properly acknowledged by the Government. It also notes that the compensation offered is comparable with Court awards in similar cases, especially taking into account the nature of the judgments in question and the fact that the specific performance ordered therein had indeed taken place. As to the time-period of payment, the Court is satisfied that three months proposed by the Government constitute the same period as normally ordered by the Court for payment of just satisfaction pursuant to its judgments, therefore, there is no reason to reduce it as suggested by the applicants.
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, cited above, under 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).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
ANNEX
Application no.
Full name of the applicant
Year of birth of the applicant
30130/06
Valentina Georgiyevna
OKHRIMENKO
1941
33338/06
Lidiya Semenovna
ZHURAVLEVA
1947
34947/06
Mariya Stepanovna
BURTSEVA
1936
42609/06
Aleksandr Nikolayevich TOMOZOV
1958
47001/06
Andrey Vladimirovich SOLOVYEV
1963
47034/06
Valentina Semenovna VOLKOVA
1947
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy