THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30619/08
Yekaterina Grigoryevna SOKOLOVA against Russia
and 5 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 June 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention
The Government acknowledged the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations were sent to the applicants several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014, ).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications in the part related to the delayed non-enforcement of the judgments (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, 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 applications in the part concerning the delayed enforcement of the final judgments (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list insofar as they relate to the delayed enforcement complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
As concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaint, the Court has already noted the existence of a new domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced in the wake of the pilot judgment, which enables those concerned to seek compensation for damage sustained as a result of excessive delays in the enforcement of court judgments (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 35555/05 and 6 others, 2 May 2017). In the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, mutatis mutandis, Pobudilina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 7142/05 and 29 others, 29 March 2011; Zemlyanskiy and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 18969/06 and 4 others, 13 March 2012; and many other cases).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, in so far as they concern the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour;
Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 July 2020.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household
(in euros)[1]
30619/08
28/03/2008
Yekaterina Grigoryevna SOKOLOVA
21/11/1934
07/07/2016
1,260
39422/11
24/05/2011
Nina Vasilyevna RYAKHINA
16/01/1940
29/09/2016
2,240
66213/11
03/10/2011
Vadim Vitalyevich GUZEYEV
17/10/1974
01/07/2016
2,510
74264/11
07/11/2011
Household
Yevgeniya Ivanovna ANASHKINA
01/11/1951
Ivan Gennadyevich ANASHKIN
14/02/1990
01/07/2016
3,000
75366/11
18/11/2011
Household
Mikhail Vasilyevich CHUPRININ
09/05/1957
Angelina Vyacheslavovna CHUPRININA
10/12/1960
Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich CHUPRININ
13/10/1984
Viktoriya Vyacheslavovna SHUMIDUB
13/07/1982
Vladislava Viktorovna SHUMIDUB
26/02/2002
01/07/2016
12/10/2016
6,500
28075/12
29/03/2012
Igor Vitalyevich
LAMIN
14/04/1971
01/06/2016
3,250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy