THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5860/09
Marina Anatolyevna TRUTKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 April 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 19 September 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 September 2015 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, Ms Marina Anatolyevna Trutko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Dubna.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially 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.
On 15 April 2015 the complaint concerning the length of civil proceedings was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
On 18 September 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. The declaration provided as follows:
“... the Government of the Russian Federation acknowledge that the length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case was in breach of the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.
The applicant’s case was considered by the national courts of two levels of jurisdiction from August 1996 till March 2008, i.e. for 11 years and 7 months (the Government note that the European Court has extended its jurisdiction over the Russian Federation from 5 May 1998, thus the period from August 1996 till 5 May 1998 does not correspond to ratione temporis).
The Government of the Russian Federation are ready to pay the applicant 3600 euros as just satisfaction.
The Government 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 and will be converted into the national currency of the Russian Federation at the rate applicable at the date of payment. 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.”
On 9 November 2015 the applicant disagreed with the terms of the Government’s declaration. The applicant did not comment on the amount of the proposed compensation. Neither did she submit any comments in respect of her length of proceedings complaint. In her reply to the unilateral declaration, the applicant alleged that certain decisions in her other civil cases had been unfair.
The Court reiterates that under Article 37 of the Convention 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 in paragraph 1 (a), (b) or (c) 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) of the Convention 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 carefully examine the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law.
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case has been acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensation amount offered is comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delay in the proceedings in this case. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue to examine the application.
As to whether the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires the Court to continue its examination of the application, it notes that in a number of analogous cases the Court found that it was not required to continue the examination of the applications, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see Liberman and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 8065/08 and 21 others, 27 January 2015; Goloshchapov and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 4627/06 and 10 others, 27 January 2015; and Pobudilina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 7142/05 and 29 others, 29 March 2011). The Court does not see any reason to depart from that approach in the present case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike that part of the application out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The applicant 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 application in this part is 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,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration;
Decides to strike the application in respect of the length of proceedings out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 May 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy