THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21431/06
Viktor Nikolayevich TSAREV against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 August 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, 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 Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or 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.
A. Applicant, Ms Nadezhda Fedorovna Khudenko, in application no. 23216/08
On 24 June 2016 the Government informed the Registry of the death of Ms Nadezhda Khudenko, one of the applicants in application no. 23216/08.
A letter was sent to the applicant’s address by registered post enquiring whether any heirs or close family members wished to pursue the proceedings in respect of Ms Khudenko.
Having received no reply, by a registered letter the Registry renewed its request and warned the applicant’s relatives that the Court might decide to strike the case out of its list of cases. No response followed.
It has been the Court’s practice to strike applications 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 an application (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009 with further references). Since no heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the applicant’s complaints on her behalf, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which require the continued examination of the complaints lodged by the late Ms Khudenko (contrast Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, §§ 24‑28, ECHR 2003‑IX). It considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of her complaints within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike her complaints out of the list.
B. Other applicants (see appended table below)
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by all remaining applicants. They acknowledged the delayed enforcement of the domestic decisions. They further 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 applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations 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, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (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 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 (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 domestic decisions (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 in so far as they relate to the delayed enforcement complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non‑enforcement complaints. 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 several other cases). This ruling is without prejudice to the Court’s future assessment of the new remedy.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike out the complaints lodged by Ms Nadezhda Khudenko (application no. 23216/08) in view of her death and the absence of any heirs wishing to pursue her complaints before the Court;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations submitted in respect of all other applicants (see appended table below) and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the applications 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 September 2018.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name
and location
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]
21431/06
27/03/2006
Viktor Nikolayevich Tsarev
09/06/2016
-
4,800
7055/08
06/12/2007
(3 applicants)
Household
Vitaliy Sergeyevich Burenin
26/09/1970
Yelena Sergeyevna Burenina
13/06/1967
Mikhail Vitalyevich Burenin
21/05/1993
23/06/2016
20/08/2016
6,500
13117/08
06/03/2008
Household
Nina Nikolayevna Belyayeva
04/02/1952
Yuliya Aleksandrovna Chernousova
21/09/1984
Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich
Voronezh
23/06/2016
-
1,580
16851/08
21/03/2008
Household
Tamara Andreyevna Mamonova
15/11/1944
Yuliya Valeryevna Mamonova
12/12/1976
Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich
Voronezh
23/06/2016
-
1,320
23216/08
28/03/2008
Maksim Konstantinovich Khudenko
14/04/1980
Olga Konstantinovna Ryzhova (Maksimeyko)
21/05/1984
Ms Nadezhda Fedorovna Khudenko
(11/01/1954)
(deceased, no heirs)
24/06/2016
-
6,500
to be paid to each of the two applicants, Mr Maksim Khudenko and Ms Olga Ryzhova (Maksimeyko)
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy