THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19006/07
Igor Fridrikhovich SIROTA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 November 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 March 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 October 2017 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Igor Fridrikhovich Sirota, is a Russian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Lyubertsy.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgment in his favour were communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 October 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
In their declaration the Russian authorities acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Convention. The authorities declared that they were ready to pay the applicant 2,000 euros. They requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention and suggested that the 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. They stated in the declaration that the payment was to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be free of any taxes that could be applicable. It would 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 undertook 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. The payments would constitute the final resolution of the case.
By a letter of 23 November 2017, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. Although the applicant disagreed with the amount suggested by the Government, he did not submit any details and calculations in support of his position. Nor did he attempt to apply to the authorities for obtaining such calculations on his pension.
The Court accepts that in certain situations it may be difficult to calculate precisely one or more heads of damage or to distinguish between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court may then decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000‑IV). Thus, considering the Government’s offer as a whole (compare and contrast with Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 4563/07 and 151 others, § 23, 17 December 2009, and Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, § 96, 29 July 2010), the Court finds no reason to consider that the compensation offered to Mr Sirota constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violations of his Convention rights. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to examine whether the acceptance of the Government’s unilateral declaration would indeed prevent the applicant from requesting the reopening of the proceedings in his case (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v.Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, § 50, 28 June 2016). In any event, it has not been demonstrated that the reopening of proceedings would lead to a result substantially different from what the Government have undertaken to pay in terms of compensation (compare and contrast Šarić and Others v. Croatia, nos. 38767/07 and 24 others, § 28, 18 October 2011).
In light of the above considerations, and 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 (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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 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 the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 December 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy