FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8092/02
by Platon Nikolayevich SAVELYEV and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are the following Russian nationals: Ms Yekaterina Vasilyevna Babenko born in 1952 (“the first applicant”), Mr Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Boyev born in 1947 (“the second applicant”), Ms Anna Mikhaylovna Boyeva born in 1950 (“the third applicant”), Mr Vladimir Dmitriyevich Chuprov born in 1927 (“the fourth applicant”), Ms Olga Ivanovna Chuprova born in 1930 (“the fifth applicant”), Mr Stepan Vasilyevich Khozyashev born in 1938 (“the sixth applicant”), Mr Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Kravchenko born in 1941 (“the seventh applicant”), Ms Yevdokiya Sergeyebna Kravchenko born in 1940 (“the eighth applicant”), Ms Praskovya Vasilyevna Merenova born in 1928 (“the ninth applicant”), Mr Semen Ivanovich Ovsyannikov born in 1931 (“the tenth applicant”), Ms Mariya Fedorovna Ovsyannikova born in 1935 (“the eleventh applicant”), Ms Aleksandra Yevdokimovna Pozdnyakova born in 1936 (“the twelfth applicant”), Mr Platon Nikolayevich Savelyev born in 1926 (“the thirteenth applicant”), Ms Olga Semenovna Shiryayeva born in 1904 (“the fourteenth applicant”). They are all retired residents of Novovoronezh. The applicants were represented by Ms S. Poznakhirina, a lawyer practising in Novovoronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, their former Representative at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, their current Representative.
In 2003 the fourteenth applicant passed away. Her daughter and heir, Ms Pozdnyakova, expressed wish to pursue her application. In 2005 the thirteenth applicant passed away. His widow and heir, Ms Savelyeva, expressed wish to pursue his application. In 2010 the second applicant passed away. His widow and heir, the third applicant, expressed wish to pursue his application. The Court considers that the aforementioned heirs had legitimate interest to stand in place of the respective deceased applicants for the purpose of the present proceeding (see Novinskiy v. Russia, no. 11982/02, § 92, 10 February 2009).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1999 and 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of Voronezh Region allowed the applicants’ claims against the Pension Fund for arrears in their old-age pensions. Those judgments in the applicants’ favour, which became final, were belatedly enforced.
In February 2010 the Government submitted copies of friendly‑settlement agreements concluded with each of the applicants or their heirs, as indicated above, except of the second and third applicants. Under the terms of those agreements, each of the applicants or their heirs, as indicated above, agreed to receive specified amount of monetary compensation in exchange of withdrawal of their complaints lodged with this Court.
In March 2010 the applicants’ representative commented upon the friendly-settlement agreements submitted by the Government. She contended that the amount of compensation agreed upon therein had been insufficient and incommensurate with the gravity of the damage suffered by her clients. She further explained that the applicants or their heirs had signed the relevant agreements as they had been subjected to “psychological pressure” of the authorities, with no further elaboration or substantiation.
In May 2010 the Government submitted unilateral declarations. They acknowledged “the lengthy enforcement” of the domestic judgments in respect of the second and third applicants and offered 2,600 euros each by way of just satisfaction.
The remainder of their declarations was formulated 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 decision taken by the Court... 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 August 2010 the applicants’ representative commented upon the Government’s declarations as summarized above. She disagreed with the amount of compensation offered insisting upon its augmentation.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the final domestic court awards in their favour.
THE LAW
The Court considers it prudent to analyse first the situation of those applicants who had signed the friendly-settlement agreements with the Government and turn subsequently to the situation of the remaining applicants.
The Court notes that twelve individuals including the applicants and their heirs, as indicated above, signed the friendly-settlement agreements with the Government. The respective settlements cover all the complaints which the Court has to consider in the present case, except of those lodged by the second and third applicants. The Court further notes the applicants’ representative’s submissions in respect of those friendly settlements reached by her clients. The Court is mindful of the fact that the applicants’ representative had not challenged the authenticity of the agreements referred to by the Government. It therefore concludes that they had indeed been signed by the relevant applicants or their heirs. The Court has no reason to doubt their legal value given that the applicant’s representative’s allegation of psychological pressure allegedly imposed upon the signatories by the Government remained without any proper substantiation and proof. In the above-mentioned circumstances, the applicant’s representative’s contention that the amount of compensation freely agreed upon by her clients had been insufficient is irrelevant. It follows that the matter has been resolved; the Court further finds no reason of a general character which would nevertheless require the examination of the relevant complaints (see Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 22519/02, § 14, 13 April 2006). Accordingly, in so far as the complaints of the above-mentioned applicants are concerned, the Court strikes the application out of its list pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court now turns to the complaints lodged by the second and third applicants who had not signed friendly-settlement agreements with the Government and in whose respect the unilateral declarations had been submitted by the Government, as specified above. The Court notes that following the second applicant’s death the third applicant proceeded to express her interest of pursuing not only her own complaint but also the complaint initially lodged by her late husband. The Government, having been informed of that, raised no objection. The Court therefore understands that the compensation offered to the second applicant shall be payable to the third applicant. Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court notes that they give their beneficiaries redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia, no. 33509/04, § 145, ECHR 2009-...). In particular, the Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of the relevant domestic judgments is acknowledged by the Government and that the compensation offered is comparable with what the Court awards in similar cases. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in this part; it is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue its examination (see, for a similar conclusion, Sobol and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 11373/03 et al., 24 June 2010). Accordingly, in so far as the complaints lodged by the second and third applicants are concerned, the Court likewise strikes the application out of its list pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings, the Court notes that its present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it may take to restore the present application to its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy