FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38374/02
by Svetlana Vladimirovna PYATKO and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 September 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 16 September 2002,
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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are five unrelated persons. They are:Ms Svetlana Vladimirovna Pyatko, born in 1970;Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Avdeyev, born in 1959;Ms Irina Vladimirovna Orlova, born in 1967;Ms Anzhelika Yuryevna Kolodkina, born in 1963;Ms Lidiya Pavlovna Pechegina, born in 1964.
The applicants are Russian nationals and live in Salsk, the Rostov Region. They are represented before the Court by Mr V. Fursov, a lawyer practising in Salsk. 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. Proceedings for arrears
The applicants receive welfare payments for their children. In 2001 they brought separate sets of proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1996 –1999.
On 5 June 2001 the Justice of Peace of District no. 2 of Salsk (мировой судья судебного участка № 2 г. Сальска) awarded 3,730.64 Russian roubles (RUR) in the first applicant’s favour. This judgment entered into force on 16 June 2001. In 2002 the above judgment was enforced in part and the sum of RUR 1,870.08 was paid to the first applicant. In 2005 she received the remaining part of her court award in the amount of RUR 1,860.47.
On 24 May 2001 the Justice of Peace of District no. 2 of Salsk awarded RUR 5,331.10 in the second applicant’s favour. This judgment entered into force on 5 June 2001. In 2002 – 2003 this judgment was enforced in part and the second applicant received RUR 4,835.82. In 2005 he was paid the remaining part of his award.
On 20 July 2001 the Justice of Peace of District no. 2 of Salsk awarded RUR 13,553.10 to the third applicant. This judgment became final on 31 July 2001. In December 2001 the third applicant received RUR 584.40 out of the total amount of her court award. In 2002 – 2003 a sum of RUR 3,683.57 was transferred to the third applicant. In 2005 she was paid the remaining amount of RUR 9,267.85.
On 27 July 2001 the Justice of Peace of District no. 2 of Salsk awarded the fourth applicant RUR 5,267.20. The judgment entered into force on 6 August 2001. In 2002 the judgment was enforced in part and the fourth applicant received the sum of RUR 1,739. In 2003 the fourth applicant was paid RUR 3,049.34 and in 2005 obtained the remainder of her court award in the amount of RUR 478.80.
On 24 April 2001 the Justice of Peace of District no. 2 of Salsk awarded RUR 4,925 to the fifth applicant. The judgment became final on 4 May 2001. In 2002 this judgment was enforced in part and the fifth applicant received RUR 1,986.96. In 2003 the fifth applicant further was paid RUR 2,490.30. In 2005 the fifth applicant received the remainder of her court award in the amount of RUR 447.74.
2. Proceedings for damages
In 2002 the applicants sued the welfare authority complaining about the latter’s failure to comply in full and timeously with the judgments in their favour.
On 16 January and 14 March 2002 respectively the Salsk Town Court of the Rostov Region dismissed the applicants’ complaints as groundless, having accepted the authority’s argument that due to the lack of financing the applicants’ court awards would be enforced in instalments.
On 20 March, 29 May and 13 June 2002 respectively the Rostov Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of their court awards.
THE LAW
By letter of 6 March 2006 the Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, having stated that the applicants had accepted an offer in settlement of their application, namely payment of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 100 per cent of their judgment debts within three months from the date on which the strike-out decision would be taken. They enclosed copies of friendly settlement agreements dated 13 February 2006.
On 15 March 2006 the Court received a letter from the applicants who had formally affirmed that they had accepted the settlement in question.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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 to 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