FIRST SECTION

DECISION

This version was rectified on 29 August 2012 and 24 April 2013 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

Application no. 25187/07 Genrikh Nikolayevich AGASIYEV and Others against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 February 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić , President, Anatoly Kovler , Peer Lorenzen , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos , Erik Møse , judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2004 ,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ),

Having regard to the declaration s submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the appli cation s out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ replies to those declaration s ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals who se names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix below . Mr O. Anisimov died on 27 June 2000 before the individual application on his behalf was lodged under Article 34 by Ms V. Anisimova .

The applicants were represented before the Court by M r A. Nosov who practised in Vladikavkaz and Mr D. Gorev , a lawyer practising in Offenbach am Main , Germany . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented first by Ms V. Milinchuk and then by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants are acting or former police officers who participated in the conflict-resolution operations in the republics of North Ossetia and Ingushetia in 1992. They subsequently sued the North Ossetia- Alania Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior for arrears of various allowances due to them for the period of service. On various dates in 2001 and 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz allowed their claims. These judgments became binding and were enforced in 2004 and 2005 .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain ed under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement or belated enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

They also complained that the authorities had refused to pay them some other amounts they had allegedly been entitled to and invoked Article 14 of the Convention alleging that they had been subjected to discrimination in comparison to other police officers who had received such payments.

THE LAW

1. F ollowing the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above , the Government informed the Court of the paym ent of the domestic court award in Mr Anisimov ’ s favour and submitted a unilateral declaration in his respect designed to provide acknowledgment and redress of the belated enforcement. However, given that Mr Anisimov died in 2000, the complaint lodged by Ms Anisimova on his behalf on 25 March 2004 is incompatible with the Convention ratione personae in the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) of the Convention and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

2. The Government informed the Court in a similar manner of the payment of the domestic court awards in the remaining fifty applicants ’ favour and submitted unilateral declaration s aimed at resolving the issue of belated enforcement . By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the excessive duration of enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated in the appendix . The remainder of the declarations read s 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 [th ese 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.”

The applicants disagreed with the Government ’ s declarations insisting on examination of the rest of their complaints.

The Court reiterates that under Article 37 of the Convention it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions spec ified 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 rec alls that in its pilot judgment cited above 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 :

“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 judgments in the applicants ’ favour is explicitly acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensations offered 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 this complaint . It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this complaint .

Accordingly, in so far as the complaint about delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour is concerned, the application should be struck out of the list.

As regards the question of implementation of the Government ’ s undertakings, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention (see the Committee ’ s decisions of 14-15 September 2009 (CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065) and Interim Resolution CM/ ResDH (2009)1 58 concerning the implementation of the Burdov (no. 2) judgment). 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 Conv ention, the present application to the list of cases (see E.G. v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008 (extracts) ) .

3. The Court has considered the remaining complaints as submitted by the applicants . 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 s 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 in the part concerning the complaint of non-enforcement in respect of the applicants out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić Registrar President

APPENDI X

Applicant ’ s name and date of birth

Compensation offered (euros)

Genrikh Nikolayevich AGASIYEV

27/03/1960

Oleg Sergeyevich ANISIMOV

20/06/2954 (died 27/06/2000)

Svetlana Khadzhimuratovna DZHIGKAYEVA

13/10/1937

Aslan Iranbekovich BADTIYEV

23/05/1965

Kazbek Kazgeriyevich BADTIYEV

04/01/1958

Safarbek Surkayevich BAROYEV

15/05/1955

Kazbek Muratbekovich BITIMIROV

03/03/1960

Valeriy Arkadyevich BOLIYEV

15/04/1956

Artur Kimovich CHELDIYEV

12/08/1971

Taimuraz Yefimovich CHELDIYEV

01/04/1952

Akhsar Nikolayevich CHOCHIYEV

02/07/1968

Akhsarbek Mikhaylovich DAMZOV

26/11/1954

Yuriy Grigoryevich DZHAGAYEV

25/07/1969

Kostan Mikhaylovich DZHIMIYEV

14/07/1962

Artur Aslanbekovich DZANAGOV

06/01/1961

Ruslan Khadzhu mar ovich DZULAYEV [1]

15/11/1953

Fatima Mikhaylovna DUDIYEVA

01/11/1959

Shamil Aleksandrovich FARNIYEV

13/01/1948

Inal Khazbiyevich GABANOV

05/05/1971

Valentina Vladimirovna GADZAOVA

05/08/1954

Irbek Akhsarbekovich GADZAOV

23/10/1956

Taymuraz Lentoyevich GOBOZOV

17/09/1963

Fatima Timofeyevna GOGELIYA

22/02/1959

Taymuraz Dmitriyevich GOLOYEV

05/04/1956

Murat Zaurbekovich GUBAYEV

09/01/1960

Vyacheslav Omarbiyevich GULUYEV

06/03/1963

Vladimir Mironovich IKAYEV

22/04/1976

Tamerlan Turbekovich KABANOV

17/03/1961

Kazbek Soltanbekovich KAYTUKOV

27/01/1961

Erik Vladimirovich KASAYEV

29/04/1965

Vidadi Tarverdiyevich KERIMOV

03/07/1978

Oleg Savelyevich KHABAYEV

13/04/1966

Sergey Sergeyevich KHADZHIYERIDI

13/01/1960

Kazbek Khasanovich KHETAGUROV

11/06/1959

Feliks Yevgenyevich KOZAYEV

07/02/1975

Ruslan Sergeyevich KOKAYEV

16/08/1962

Muraz Buriyevich KUDUKHOV

03/04/1956

Artur Ma g omedkhanovich [2] MAGOMEDKHANOV

04/06/1966

Viktor Valentinovich MINAYEV

01/09/1953

Oleg Nikolayevich NOSACHEV

14/10/1966

Iosif Otaryevich POPKHADZE

13/02/1955

Dmitriy Ivanovich PRESNYAKOV

11/04/1971

Marina Borisovna PROSKURKO

08/08/1966

Aleksandr Khetagovich RAMONOV

03/08/1960

Sergey Nikolayevich ROYENKO

27/02/1961

Yuriy Petrovich SAKKAYEV

12/01/1958

Avtandil Vladimirovich SANAKOYEV

13/02/1966

Valeriy Nikolayevich SARAYEV

06/08/1955

Yelena Vitalyevna ZAKHAROVA

10/03/1959

Sergey Vyacheslavovich ZAKHAROV

23/02/1962

Mairbek Grigoryevich KHUBAYEV

02/01/1955

1,610

--

1,370

1,490

1,540

1,500

1,540

1,540

1,585

1,415

1,360

1,535

1,590

1,530

1,420

1,290

1,510

1,560

1,680

1,700

1,705

1,455

1,490

1,640

1,340

1,320

1,720

1,510

1,200

1,490

1,690

1,570

1,690

1,700

1,245

1,400

1,430

1,775

1,600

1,600

1,670

1,720

1,680

1,590

1,600

1,630

1,705

1,545

1,670

1,600

1,525

[1] . Rectified on 24 April 201 3 : the text was “ Khadzhimuratovich ”

[2] 2 . Rectified on 29 August 2012: the text was “ Madomedkhanovich ”