THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50910/19
Valentina Anatolyevna YURYEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Darian Pavli,
Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 September 2019,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 25 November 2020 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 Valentina Anatolyevna Yuryeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Severodvinsk. She was represented before the Court by Ms T.M. Vinogradova, a lawyer practising in Arkhangelsk.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour against a private party. She relied on Article 6 of the Convention.
The notice of the above complaint was given to the Government on 10 January 2020.
On 25 November 2020 the Government submitted to the Court a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The unilateral declaration in the relevant part read as follows:
“The Government acknowledge that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lengthy enforcement of the judgment of Essentuksky Town Court of 27 July 2010 and the ruling of the Essentuksky Town Court of 3 July 2015 delivered against a private party in favour of Valentina Anatolyevna Yuryeva, related, inter alia, to failure of the State authorities to provide her with appropriate assistance in enforcement of the named decisions.
The Russian Government are ready to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 3,000 as just satisfaction.
The Russian 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 the case out 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. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and shall be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the date of payment. 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 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 case.”
On 16 January 2021 the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates that under Article 37§ 1 (c) of the Convention it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where “it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. The Court further reiterates that it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes to continue the examination of the case.
Having regard to the nature of the acknowledgement of a violation in the Government’s declaration, 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 application. Further, the Court does not discern any grounds to conclude that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires 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 case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 22 April 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Olga ChernishovaGeorges Ravarani
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy