THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8496/05
Larisa Vladimirovna SMOLNIKOVA and Others against Russia
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 February 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on different dates (see the Appendix) requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the Appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyuskin, 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 were parties to civil proceedings that took place in courts of ordinary jurisdiction in various regions of Russia. These disputes concerned various civil matters such as labour, housing, registration of property and consumers’ rights among others. In all of the above cases the domestic courts took lengthy periods of time to examine the applicants’ claims ranging between two and ten years.
The applicants complained, in particular, about the length of the proceedings in their cases. In certain cases they also complained of lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of undue length of the proceedings.
The applications were communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision.
B. Complaints about the length of proceedings
The applicants complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
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 raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declarations provided as follows:
“... the Government of the Russian Federation acknowledge that the length of proceedings in the applicants’ case was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.
...
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 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 periods plus three percentage points.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
Some applicants disagreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Some of them insisted on examination of their applications on the merits. Some applicants did not reply.
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) 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 proceedings in the applicants’ cases is acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensations offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delays in the proceedings in each particular case. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.
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 Liberman and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 8065/08, 27 January 2015; Goloshchapov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 4627/06, 27 January 2015; and Pobudilina and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 7142/05, 29 March 2011). 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 length of proceedings 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.
C. Complaints about lack of an effective domestic remedy
Some applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings.
The Government did not specify their position in relation to this complaint.
The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduced by federal laws № 68-FZ and № 69-FZ on 4 May 2010 in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009).
On 23 September 2010 the Court decided that all new cases introduced after the Burdov pilot judgment and falling within the scope of the new domestic remedy had to be submitted in the first place to the national courts (see Fakhretdinov and Others (dec.) no. 26716/09, § 32, 23 September 2010). The Court also stated that its position may be subject to review in the future, depending in particular on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent practice under the new law in line with the Convention requirements (ibid., § 33).
Finally, the Court notes that all the applicants were in principle enabled to claim compensation under the transitional provisions of the new law and that they will in any event receive pecuniary compensation in respect of their grievances in accordance with the Government’s declarations examined above.
Having regard to these special circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to continue a separate examination of the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in the present cases (see, Zemlyanskiy and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 18969/06 et al., 13 March 2012, and Pobudilina and Others, cited above).
D. Other complaints
Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles of the Convention. However, 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 the applications in this part are manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 applications in respect of the length of proceedings out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention of lack of an effective remedy;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 March 2016.
Marialena TsirliHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application No.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Date of declaration and
compensation offered
8496/05
22/01/2005
Larisa Vladimirovna SMOLNIKOVA
25/01/1962
St Petersburg
Pavel Yefimovich SMOLNIKOV
11/05/1962
St Petersburg
Gleb Pavlovich SMOLNIKOV
12/11/1983
St Petersburg
06/04/ 2015
EUR 2,100 to all three applicants
20595/05
08/05/2005
Tatyana Vasilyevna SHATALOVA
23/06/1960
Chernyatino
06/04/2015
EUR 2,300
42458/05
08/11/2005
Lyudmila Mikhaylovna SMIRNOVA
31/10/1944
St Petersburg
06/04/2015
EUR 2,500
507/06
14/11/2005
Olga Ivanovna BEGCHENKOVA
26/01/1955
Kudryashovsk
06/04/2015
EUR 2,500
14562/07
07/02/2007
Aleksandr Fedorovich MARTYNOV
11/08/1962
Belgorod
13/01/2015
EUR 1,100
21607/07
18/04/2007
Yuriy Masumovich NEVRETDINOV
04/06/1947
Yalta
Aleksandra Petrovna PISAREVA
12/10/1922
Yalta
Stanislav Masumovich NEVRETDINOV
13/01/2015
EUR 1,300 to each applicant
38190/07
10/07/2007
Valentina Grigoryevna MAKARENKO
25/02/1948
Vorkuta
13/01/2015
EUR 2,500
44374/07
29/08/2007
Lyubov Lvovna TSAREVA
06/03/1941
Yaroslavl
13/01/2015
EUR 2,000
51194/07
01/11/2007
Lyudmila Valentinovna VERDIREVSKAYA
01/02/1951
Norilsk
Dmitriy Alekseyevich BOYEV
13/01/2015
EUR 1,100
54242/07
20/11/2007
Aleksandr Borisovich KUZNETSOV
01/03/1952
Ussuriysk
13/01/2015
EUR 3,500
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy