FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29834/07
Tatyana Fedorovna OVCHINNIKOVA and Sergey Yuryevich OVCHINNIKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 January 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are two Russian nationals: Ms Tatyana Fedorovna Ovchinnikova (“the first applicant”), who was born in 1958 and lives in Cheboksary, and Mr Sergey Yuryevich Ovchinnikov (“the second applicant”), who was born in 1988 and lives in Totskoye.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The first applicant was awarded the following amounts in relation to termination of her labor contract:
(i) 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 2,500 by the judgment of the Totskiy District Court of Orenburg dated 7 June 2006. The judgment became final on 19 June 2006 and was enforced on 19 October 2009.
(ii) RUB 11,000 by the judgment of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of the Orenburg Region dated 2 March 2007. The judgment became final on 19 March 2007 and was enforced on 19 October 2009.
(iii) RUB 7,000, RUB 450, RUB 2,278 and fines to be paid in case of delayed payment by the judgment of the Totskiy District Court of Orenburg dated 1 July 2008. The judgment became final on the same day and was enforced on 19 October 2009.
(iv) RUB 7,000 and RUB 8,000 by the judgment of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of the Orenburg Region dated 14 February 2008. The judgment became final on 3 March 2008 and was enforced on 19 October 2009.
(v) RUB 12,000 by the judgment of the Troitskiy Court of Orenburg dated 6 August 2007. The judgment became final on 26 September 2007 and was enforced on 2 November 2007.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments listed above.
2. The applicants also made accessory complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Locus standi of the second applicant
The Government objected that the second applicant had no standing in the case. The Court observes that the second applicant was not a party to the proceedings ended by the judgments listed above. The Court also notes that in respect of the entirety of the complaints in the present application, there is nothing to suggest that the second applicant’s rights under the Convention were in any way affected. Therefore, the Court concludes that the second applicant lacks victim status under the Convention.
B. Non-enforcement complaints of the first applicant in relation to first four judgments
In line with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009), the Government informed the Court that the domestic court judgments in favor of the first applicant had been enforced and submitted a unilateral declaration aimed at resolving the issue of delayed enforcement. By this declaration the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of first four judgments and declared that they were ready to pay the first applicant 1,636 euros as just satisfaction for lengthy enforcement of those judgments. The remainder of the declaration reads as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case 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 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 judgment taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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.”
The first applicant disagreed with the unilateral declaration, considering that the monetary compensation was insufficient in the case and asking criminal prosecution of the head of the school who had fired her. The Court observes that this submission is not related to the enforcement of the judgments and therefore rejects it.
The Court recalls 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. 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 cited above (point 7 of the operative part) 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 (point 8 of the operative part):
“... 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 first applicant 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 the four judgments in favour of the first applicant is explicitly acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the domestic judgment debts were paid to the first applicant and that the compensation offered by the Government for non-pecuniary damage is 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 application in the part related to the delayed enforcement of four judgments in favour of the first applicant.
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is 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 application in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
C. Other complaints of the first applicant
Regarding the first applicant’s complaint of delayed enforcement of the judgment of the Troitskiy Court of Orenburg dated 6 August 2007, the Court notes that the period of enforcement was less than a year. Having regard to this fact and the Court’s case-law in similar cases, the Court considers that this period did not fall short of the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009).
As for the remainder complaints of the first applicant, in the light of 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 application 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 that Mr Ovchinnikov has no standing in the case;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 February 2015.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy