Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

This version was rectified on 28 January 2011 un der Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

A pplication no. 4595/02 and 44 other applications by Aleksandr Vasilyevich MURZIN and Others against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President, Nina Vajić , Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Dean Spielmann , George Nicolaou , judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

H aving regard to the above applications,

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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ' replies to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows :

THE FACTS

The applicants are 46 Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. 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 and, in certain cases, of assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the judicial or enforcement proceedings.

THE LAW

1. Following 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 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 ex gratia 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 [these 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. A majority of the applicants failed to reply. Certain others 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 specified under (a), (b), or (c) 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 recalls that in its pilot judgment ( Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , cited above) it recently 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 expli citly or in substance. It also notes that the compensations offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia , of the specific delay(s) 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)) .

2. Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles 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 and 4 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the application s out of its list of cases in so far as the non-enforcement complaints are concerned;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar Presiden t

ANNEX

Application n o.

Last name

Forename

Born

Compensation offered ( euro s)

1

4595/02

MURZIN

ALEKSANDR VASILYEVICH

1954

5,200. 00

2

34917/03

KOZYUN

ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH

1964

3,654. 00

3

39906 /03

KAZAKOV

ANATOLIY ALEKSANDROVICH

19 47

2,000. 00

4

10452/04

RUZANOVA

RAISA VASILYEVNA

1941

4,750. 00

5

20074/04

ALEKSASHIN

ALEKSASHINA

SERGEY VIKTOROVICH

ANAITA MIKHAYLOVNA

1970

1966

800.00

600.00

6

24903/04

GRIGORYAN

NELSON KARLENOVICH

195 7

3, 000 . 00

7

39975/04

RUBTSOV

ALEKSEY ALEKSEYEVICH

1942

2,000.00

8

41502/04

ROZHNYATOVSKIY

DMITRIY KONSTANTINOVICH

1974

1,400. 00

9

2633/05

TSARENKO

NIKOLAY FEDOROVICH

1936

3,300.00

10

3016/05

KOZLOV

GENNADIY VIKTOROVICH

1968

1,044. 00

11

4934/05

LEVKOVICH

VIKTOR MARYANOVICH

1959

2,040.00

12

22737/05

GOLOVIN

VALERIY SERAFIMOVICH

1945

50,000.00 RUB

13

23680/05

SUSHENOK

YEVGENIY IVANOVICH

1957

928.00

14

25733/05

TISHCHENKO

SERGEY GRIGORYEVICH

1953

1,468.00

15

34048/05

BAYSULTANOVA

UPIYAT BAYSULTANOVNA

1954

5,000.00

16

35697/05

SAVCHENKO

ZOYA VASILYEVNA

1921

2,500.00

17

44707/05

YERMAKOV

VIKTOR MIKHAYLOVICH

1949

2,205.00

18

45693/05

GODNYA

IGOR DMITRIYEVICH

1953

1,990.00

19

3513/06

ZACHINYAYEVA

VALENTINA ALEKSEYEVNA

1947

2,600.00

20

8553/06

TROFIMOV

PAVEL YAKOVLEVICH

1948

2,500.00

21

29766/06

SMOTRAKOVA

MARINA VLADIMIROVNA

1955

3,900.00

22

29770/06

MOCHALOVA

VALENTINA NIKOLAYEVNA

1959

4,000.00

23

32644/06

SHIMANCHIK

ALEKSANDR MIKHAYLOVICH

1961

890.00

24

42279/06

ZHUKHOVITSKIY

EDUARD DANILOVICH

1935

100.00

25

50403/06

KOROLEV

SERGEY VYACHESLAVOVICH

1968

1,825.00

26

50472/06

BATCHENKO

VIKTOR DMITRIYEVICH

1950

968.00

27

5881/07

IVANOVA

NINA IVANOVNA

1949

3,730.00

28

9536/07

SHVETSOV

SERGEY SERGEYEVICH

1977

2,180.00

29

10363/07

RASPOPIN

VIKTOR NIKOLAYEVICH

1962

1,946.00

30

12891/07

VORONINA

LARISA DMITRIYEVNA

1949

3,300.00

31

13471/07

TROPIN

ANATOLIY IVANOVICH

1951

870.00

32

18681/07

TEREKHOV

YEVGENIY YURYEVICH

1957

32,804.90 RUB

3,567.00

33

25410/07

TATARNIKOVA

NATALIYA VALENTINOVNA

1969

4,000.00

34

32677/07

BORISOV

ANATOLIY ALEKSANDROVICH

1948

1,600.00

35

37010/07

GODUN

VLADIMIR SERGEYEVICH

1950

2,750.00

36

37410/07

GOLIKOV

VALERIY GRIGORYEVICH

1957

1,100.00

37

38027/07

BARANNIKOV

IGOR VLADIMIROVICH

1962

3,500.00

38

38732/07

LEVINA

IDA DANILOVNA

1938

3,600.00

39

40434/07

MOZHAYKIN

BORIS NIKOLAYEVICH

1960

773.00

40

44555/07

SIROTIN

NIKOLAY IVANOVICH

1951

600.00

41

44568/07

ARESTOV

ANATOLIY IVANOVICH

1947

800.00

42

44877/07

BATSUNOV

NIKOLAY PETROVICH

1954

830.00

43

51345/07

ZHILENKOV

ALEKSANDR YEVGENYEVICH

1970

3,000.00

44

16357/08

IVANENKO

OLEG SERGEYEVICH [1]

1950

958.00

45

16688/08

TOCHILOVSKAYA

RENATA VILLIYEVNA

1967

5,000.00

[1] Rectified on 28 January 2011: the patronymic was “ IVANOVICH ”

Menu

MURZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

MURZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI