THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1151/06
Aleksandr Feogenovich VAKHRUSHEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 September 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 June 2016 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 Aleksandr Feogenovich Vakhrushev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow.
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.
The applicant complained, inter alia, about the lengthy criminal proceedings against the management of an open joint-stock company, OAO “ROSICH”, in which he acted as a civil claimant. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that certain judicial decisions rendered in his favour had not been enforced.
On 20 February 2012 the complaints about the length of proceedings, which ended on 28 October 2011, and delayed enforcement of the judgments of 2 December 2003, 23 November 2006, and 28 November 2007 were communicated to the Government.
In their observations of 18 June 2012 the Government submitted, in particular, that the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of 23 November 2006 had been transferred to him on 22 March 2007.
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by the letter dated 7 June 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.
They acknowledged the lengthy court proceedings and lengthy enforcement of the judgments of the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow of 2 December 2003 and 28 November 2007. They undertook to pay the applicant 5,500 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into the national currency of the Russian Federation at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the application.
On 13 July 2016 the applicant informed the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration and signed the acceptance form to that effect. He specified that he had accepted the declaration in the part concerning delayed enforcement of the judgments of 2 December 2003 and of 27 November 2007. In a letter enclosed to the acceptance form he informed the Court that he still had not recovered the debts from the management of OAO “ROSICH” and maintained a number of his other complaints dealt with in the two last paragraphs of the present decision (see below). He did not specify his position in respect of the length complaint and otherwise did not mention that issue in any other way.
THE LAW
Having regard to the applicant’s complaints about the length of proceedings and delayed enforcement of the judgments of 2 December 2003, and 28 November 2007, the Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties (see Cēsnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 9278/06, § 34, 6 March 2012, and Bakal and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 8243/08, 5 June 2012).
It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in so far as it relates to the above complaints. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application in this part.
In any event the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the execution of the terms of the friendly settlement as set out in the present decision (Article 39 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 43 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Further, in any event the Court’ s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the present applications to its list of cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the above complaints.
The applicant also complained about delayed enforcement of the judgment of 23 November 2006 awarding him pension arrears, penalties, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It follows from the Government’s submissions that the judgment in question was enforced on 22 March 2007, i.e. within four months from the date it had become final. The applicant did not contest that information. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sirotin v. Russia (dec.), no. 38712/03, 14 September 2006), the Court considers that the delay in the enforcement of the above judgment in the circumstances of the present case cannot be said to have impaired the essence of the applicant’s right to a court.
The applicant lodged other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. In particular, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention the applicant complained that the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial in the criminal proceedings against the management of OAO “ROSICH”, that, as a result of certain defects in those proceedings, he had suffered material damage which he had not been compensated for. He also complained about the quashing by way of supervisory review of final court judgments of 17 August 2005 and 28 October 2005, initially rendered in his favour, and about non-enforcement of several domestic judicial decisions ordering private parties to pay the applicant certain amounts.
Having examined the above complaints 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, or are inadmissible on other grounds. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention in so far as it relates to the complaints about the length of proceedings and delayed enforcement of the judgments of 2 December 2003 and 28 November 2007;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2017.
Fatoş AracıLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy