FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38766/07
Sergey Ivanovich SUVOROV and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Andre Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2007,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009),
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike some parts of the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to these declarations,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations submitted by the applicants in reply,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application no. 38766/07 against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 16 Russian nationals.
A list of the applicants, who are living in Velikiye Luki, is set out in the Appendix.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The application was lodged with the Court before 15 January 2009, the date of the delivery of the pilot judgment (Burdov (no. 2), cited above).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants participated in the emergency clean-up operation at the site of the nuclear plant disaster in Chernobyl, and got entitled by domestic law to special social benefits, inter alia, food allowance and compensation for health damage. By the judgments of the Velikiye Luki Town Court, listed in the Appendix, they were awarded arrears in the respective allowances as well as compensations and monthly and annual payments of those allowances and compensations.
Those judgments in the applicants’ favour became final and enforceable and were executed with some delays as indicated in the Appendix.
The applicants complained mainly under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
THE LAW
I. LOCUS STANDI OF DECEASED APPLICANTS
In the course of the proceedings Mr Burenkov, Mr Filchenkov, Mr Yakovlev and Mr Yegorov have died.
1. The relatives of Mr Yakovlev and Mr Yegorov (Ms Svetlana Aleksandrovna Astapova, daughter of Mr Yakovlev, and Mrs Lyubov Ivanovna Yegorova, widow of Mr Yegorov) informed by letters of 15 October 2013 of their intent to pursue the proceedings before the Court. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his heirs of next kin may in principle pursue the application on his behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX). Furthermore, in several Russian cases concerning non‑enforcement of court judgments in the applicant’s favour, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006, and Shvedov v. Russia, no. 69306/01, 20 October 2005).
The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the cases referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights the applicants sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see, as regards Article 6 of the Convention, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, 13 December 2000). The Government stated in unilateral declarations that the payments would be made to the mentioned above successors of the deceased applicants. Thus, the Court considers that the relatives of Mr Yakovlev and Mr Yegorov have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in their stead.
2. No heirs or close relatives of Mr Burenkov and Mr Filchenkov have expressed the wish to pursue the application. It has been the Court’s practice to strike an application out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue the application (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009, with further references). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case in the part related to the applications of Mr Burenkov and Mr Filchenkov.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the respective parts of the application out of the list of cases.
II. COMPAINTS OF LENGTHY NON‑ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 7 SEPTEMBER 2006
The Court reiterates at the outset that as from 4 May 2009, the date on which the pilot judgment in Burdov (no. 2), cited above, became final, it adjourned the adversarial proceedings on all applications lodged with the Court in which the applicants complained of non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by State authorities pending the adoption of domestic remedial measures. However, such adjournment was without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case (ibid., § 146).
The Court also notes that the present case was communicated to the respondent State on 6 May 2013 with a view to its settlement in line with the above-mentioned pilot judgment. The Government argued in response, however, that the complaints of Mr Pastukhov, Mr Shapkin, Mr Solovyev, Mr Vasilyev and Mr Morozov in relation of the judgment of the Velikiye Luki Town Court of 7 September 2006 were inadmissible because the judgment had been enforced within a reasonable time, as set in the Appendix.
The applicants maintained their complaints and argued that the awarded compensations had not been adjusted in line with inflation.
The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, it will first look at the time it took the authorities to execute the judgment, the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, and the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
In the case of the above mentioned judgment, the period of enforcement was less than a year. Having regard to this fact and the Court’s case-law in similar cases, and taking into account the other circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that this period did not fall short of the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009).
In relation to the complaints regarding the State’s failure to adjust compensation payments awarded by the judgment of 7 September 2006 in line with inflation, the Court observes that the domestic judgment awarding compensation did not provide for any such adjustment. Therefore, it is open to the applicants to seek a judicial determination of the matter. However, such proceedings would result in a separate award, which would obviously fall outside the scope of the present case (see Aleksentseva and Others v. Russia, nos. 75025/01 et al., § 23, 17 January 2008).
It follows that the complaints raised by the applicants regarding the delayed enforcement of the judgment and the State’s alleged failure to adjust the compensation payments in line with inflation are manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. THE OTHER COMPLAINTS OF LENGTHY NON-ENFORCEMENT
In line with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment, cited above, the Government informed the Court that the domestic court decisions in favour of the applicants had been enforced and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issue of delayed enforcement of those listed in points 6-13, 15 and 16 of the Appendix. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of some of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. They also declared that they were ready to pay those applicants the sums listed in the Appendix in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. The remainder of the declarations read as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] 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 [sums tabulated below], which [are] to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. [They] 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 [these sums] within the said three‑month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on [them] 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.”
Large majority of the applicants listed in the Appendix hereto or their heirs disagreed with the unilateral declarations on various grounds. They argued that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient and the compensation payments awarded by the domestic courts had not been adjusted in line with inflation. The Court observes that those domestic judgments awarding compensation, which placed a general obligation on the domestic authorities to increase monthly payments in line with inflation, did not indicate any specific method for adjustment. In the event of a dispute arising out of the scope of that obligation or the manner of its discharge, it was open to the applicants to seek a judicial determination of the matter. However, such proceedings would result in a separate award, which would obviously fall outside the scope of the present case (see Aleksentseva and Others, cited above, § 23).
On 22 October 2013, the Court received a letter from Mr Kozyrev stating he had been acting as Mr Morozov’s representative and informing the Court that the latter had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. However, no authority form signed by Mr Morozov, which would authorise Mr Kozyrev to act on his behalf was provided to the Court. In its letter of 14 January 2014 the Court requested to provide the respective form by 11 March 2015. However, no authority form to represent Mr Morozov was provided by this date. In view of the above, it is appropriate to consider the applicant as not provided any comments on the unilateral declaration.
The Court recalls 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. 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 application.”
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.”
The Court recalls that in its pilot judgment Burdov (no. 2), cited above, (point 7 of the operative part) it ordered the Russian Federation to:
“... grant [adequate and sufficient] redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a judgment debt in their favour who [had] lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications [had been] communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court.”
In the same judgment the Court also held that (point 8 of the operative part):
“... pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court [would] adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, the proceedings in all cases concerning solely the non-enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the State authorities, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention.”
Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 127 and 145 and point 7 of the operative part).
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of the judgments in the applicants’ favour is explicitly acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the domestic judgment debts were paid to the applicants and that the compensations offered by the Government for non-pecuniary damage are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delays in each particular case (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 99 and 154).
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, nor is it required by respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.
IV. OTHER COMPLAINTS
The applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to, in particular, Article 13 of the Convention.
Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols in that part of the application. It follows that the application in this part must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides that Ms Svetlana Aleksandrovna Astapova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application instead of Mr Yakovlev, and Mrs Lyubov Ivanovna Yegorova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application instead of Mr Yegorov in so far as the non‑enforcement complaints are concerned;
Decides to strike the application in the part related to complaints of deceased applicants Mr Burenkov and Mr Filchenkov out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the application inadmissible in the part related to the complaints of Mr Pastukhov, Mr Shapkin, Mr Solovyev, Mr Vasilyev and Mr Morozov in relation of the judgment of the Velikiye Luki Town Court of 7 September 2006 and in the part related to complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations 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 remainder of 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 16 July 2015.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Applicant
Date of birth
(demise)
Represented by
Judgment delivered on
Judgment final on
Delay in enforcement
Unilateral remedial offer (euros)
Nikolay Mikhaylovich BURENKOV
29/11/1949
(27/06/2010)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Nikolay Grigoryevich SOLOVYEV
02/06/1950
D.Ye. Kozyrev
07/09/2006
21/11/2006
9 months
n/a
Yuriy Stepanovich PASTUKHOV
17/06/1941
D.Ye. Kozyrev
n/a
Vladimir Ivanovich VASILYEV
10/04/1955
D.Ye. Kozyrev
n/a
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich SHAPKIN
09/12/1949
D.Ye. Kozyrev
n/a
Vladimir Mikhaylovich MOROZOV
12/06/1951
07/09/2006
21/11/2006
9 months
n/a
05/09/2005
No. 2-750
16/09/2005
1 year 1 month and 28 days
1,751
05/09/2005
No. 2-747
16/09/2005
1 year 1 month and 28 days
19/11/2003
16/03/2004
2 years 9 months and 9 days
Nikolay Ivanovich BURMISTROV
unknown
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
08/11/2005
1 year 9 months and 12 days
1,123
Viktor Mikhaylovich YEFREMOV
26/10/1961
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
08/11/2005
1 year 9 months and 12 days
1,123
Stanislav Nikolayevich KORESHKOV
27/08/1937
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
08/11/2005
1 year 9 months and 12 days
1,123
Vladimir Sergeyevich SOKOLOV
18/06/1950
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
08/11/2005
1 year 9 months and 12 days
1,123
Valeriy Petrovich MOLCHANOV
15/07/1948
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
08/11/2005
1 year 9 months and 12 days
1,123
Vasiliy Andreyevich BELSKIY
04/08/1949
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
08/11/2005
1 year 9 months and 12 days
1,123
Sergey Ivanovich SUVOROV
01/07/1955
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
n/a
3 years 3 months and 9 days (total length)
2,066
21/10/2005
01/11/2005
19/11/2003
11/05/2004
Vladimir Dmitriyevich FILCHENKOV
25/05/1948
(03/10/2010)
D.Ye. Kozyrev
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich YAKOVLEV
16/06/1952
(17/02/2007)
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
08/11/2005
2 years 3 months and 14 days
1,444
Anatoliy Nikolayevich YEGOROV
25/03/1951
(02/02/2012)
D.Ye. Kozyrev
27/10/2005
n/a
2 years 1 month and 11 days
2,371
05/09/2005
16/09/2005
1 year 3 months and 9 days
28/03/2005
08/04/2005
1 year 8 months and 17 days
19/11/2003
16/03/2004
2 years 9 months and 9 days
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy