FIRST SECTION

DECISION

This version was rectified on 11 February 2013 and 21 March 2013 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

Application no. 21494/04 Viktor Aleksandrovich SOBOLEV and Others against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić , President, Anatoly Kovler , Peer Lorenzen , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Erik Møse , judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s ,

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 below . Some of them were represented before the Court by Mr A. Nosov and Mr I. Sivoldayev , lawyers practising in Vladikavkaz and Voronezh . The Russian Government (“the Government ” ) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , the Representative 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 sued the State authorities in domestic courts for payment of various monetary sums due under the Russian law. The courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay various amounts in the form of lump sums and/or of periodic payments to be upgraded in line with the inflation in the country. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. In a few cases they also raised grievances under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single decision.

2. F ollowing the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above the Government informed the Court of the payment of the domestic court awards in the applicants ’ favour and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged in various but very similar terms that the judgments in the applicants ’ favour were not enforced in a timely manner ( e.g. “the excessive duration of the enforcement”, “the delay in the enforcement” or “the lengthy enforcement”). They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated below. The remainder of the declarations read 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.”

Some applicants agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declarations. Others failed to reply. A majority disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by th e Government were insufficient.

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 acknowledged by the Government either explicitly or in substance. 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 the applications. 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 the applications.

Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour are concerned, the applications 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 Convention, the present applications to the list of cases (see E.G. v. Poland ( dec .), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008 ‑ ... (extracts)) .

3. Some applicants made a number of other complaints under Articles 6 and 14 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 s in this part are 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 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the application s in the part concerning a complaint of non-enforcement out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ;

Declares the remainder of the application s inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić Registrar President

ANNEX

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant name and

date of birth

Compensation offered (euros)

21494/04

21/02/2004

Viktor Aleksandrovich SOBOLEV

21/12/1948

Bakhram Agabekovich AGABEKOV

16/01/1969

Astan Kazbekovich ARKAYEV

27/12/1966

Ruslan Georgiyevich BAGAYEV

19/06/1958

Elbrus Khazbat y rovich [1] BATYAYEV

06/02/1960

Albert Savelyevich BOKOYEV

22/04/1960

Stanislav Alikhanovich GAKHOV

05/03/1962

Kazbek Akhtemirovich GUGKAYEV

04/02/1966

Taymuraz Akhtemirovich GUGKAYEV

11/10/1956

Lyudmila Sergeyevna GURIYEVA

19/11/1961

Larisa Agubekirovna DZHIGKAYEVA

22/11/1953

Viktor Taymurazovich ZAGAGOV

13/03/1954

Murat Bimbulatovich ZANGIYEV

01/01/1953

Khariton Khasanovich KALMANOV

05/05/1961

Robert Petrovich KIBIZOV

20/10/1968

Gennadiy Yuryevich KOKAYEV

02/08/1963

Nodar i [2] Arsenovich KOKAYEV

29/09/1957

Dzhabir Magomedveliyevich MAGOMEDOV

23/09/19 5 8

Giya Mikhaylovich MAKIYEV

16/03/1969

Nukzar Abramovich MARGIYEV

19/04/1953

Larisa Vladimirovna MARZAGANOVA

19/08/1948

Vadim Albertovich NAYDENOV

17/10/1968

Goar Artashevna SAFARYAN

10/09/1930

Tamazi Vladimirovich SLANOV

08/12/1964

Sergey Georgiyevich SOKUROV

26/10/1971

Ibragim Muratbekovich TAKAYEV

26/04/1972

Shamil Tamerlanovich TEDTOV

11/02/1971

Lev Andreyevich TIGIYEV

05/10/1961

Elbrus Khadzhimussayevich TORCHINOV

16/05/1949

Oleg Mairbekovich ULUBIYEV

25/02/1969

Vasi m [3] Miyassarovich KHAFIZOV

01/12/1951

Beglar Shalikoyevich KHUGAYEV

09/09/1955

1,260

2,100

1,480

1,480

1,680

1,450

1,480

1,350

1,350

2,500

1,480

1,450

1,130

1,700

1,670

1,560

1,320

1,600

1,430

1,450

1,380

1,580

1,370

1,625

1,540

1,640

930

1,650

1,560

1,640

1,480

1,320

40347/04

22/09/2004

Gennadiy Yuryevich YERMOLAYEV

12/02/1967

830

19528/05

12/04/2005

Lyubov Vladimirovna LASHKO

03/06/1954

5,000

23555/06

07/04/2006

Yelizaveta Petrovna VOLKOVA

23/11/1940

2,796

47663/06

16/10/2006

Aleksey Mikhaylovich KUZMIN

29/05/1980

3,090

48518/06

16/10/2006

Mikhail Yakovlevich BALYASNYY

08/12/1955

4,500

2214/07

21/10/2006

Svetlana Anatolyevna KRASKINA

07/04/1967

5,000

38745/08

05/06/2008

Aleksey Aleksandrovich BORISOV

02/10/19 7 9

4,000

[1] . Rectified on 11 February 2013 : the tex t was “ Khazbatrovich ”

[2] . Rectified on 11 February 2013 : the tex t was “ Nodar ”

[3] . Rectified on 21 March 2013 : the text was “ Vasit ”