Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

This version was rectified on 6 October 2010 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court

Application no. 41446/02 and 67 other applications by Sergey Aleksandrovich SHEVCHENKO and Others against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President, Nina Vajić , Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Giorgio Malinverni , George Nicolaou , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy 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 v. Russia (no. 2) ( no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ‑ ... ) ,

Having regard to the declaration s submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application s out of the list of cases and the applicants ' repl ies to th ose declaration s,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant s are 80 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 .

COMPLAINT S

The applicant s 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. In some of the applications other complaints under various Articles of the Convention are also raised.

THE LAW

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 issue s 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 disagreed, considering that the compensation amounts offered by the 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 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 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, the applications should be struck out of the list, insofar as their non-enforcement complaints are concerned .

As to the other complaints lodged by some of the applicants under various Articles of the Convention, 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 this part of the applications 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

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ' s declaration s ;

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the application s in respect of non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ' favour out of its list of cases;

Declares the remainder of the application s inadmissible.

André Wampach Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Appl . no.

Last name

Forename

Born

Compensation offered (euros)

41446/02

SHEVCHENKO

SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH

1959

600

24381/03

KALININA

TATYANA BORISOVNA

19621 , 200

MALOVA

YELENA ALEKSEYEVNA

19761 , 200

GALTSEV

MIKHAIL YURYEVICH

19631 , 200

3508/04

ZHOGIN

ANATOLIY MIKHAILOVICH

4 , 000

34103/04

ABAYEV

YURIY UZBEKOVICH

19591 , 634

TSORIYEV

VIKTOR MAGOMETOVICH

19611 , 555

AVSANOV

KHARITON TAZEYEVICH

1959

1,650

ALBEGOV

MARAT KAZBEKOVICH

19701 , 600

ALBOROV

ZAUR MIKHAYLOVICH

1960

1,698

AMBALOV

KAZBEK VLADIMIROVICH

19591 , 940

GORYAYNOV

NIKOLAY IVANOVICH

19541 , 510

DZHIOYEV

KAZBEK GRAFOVICH

19511 , 449

ZASEYEV

IBRAGIM GUBEYEVICH

19661 , 667

KOVALEV

SERGEY VASILYEVICH

19731 , 548

TUAYEV

ZURAB SHALVOVICH

19591 , 425

36496/04

YEVLANOVA

LYUDMILA VASILYEVNA

19461 , 680

42684/04

YELISEYEV

ALEKSANDR FEDOROVICH

19403 , 786

43467/04

DEMYANENKO

VASILIY VLADIMIROVICH

19601 , 500

4672/05

PAVLOV

VYACHESLAV ALEKSEYEVICH

19811 , 148

19180/05

BAKHINSKIY

ALEKSANDR VYACHESLAVOVICH

19561 , 700

22180/05

SHISHOV

SERGEY BORISOVICH

1951

923

25511/05

GVOZDEV

SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH

1971

1,600

43136/05

SAMOYLOVA

VERA GEORGIYEVNA

1937

3,000

43208/05

KLYKOVA

NATALYA NIKOLAYEVNA

1955

1, 33 0 [1]

45685/05

KUDELIN

VIKTOR POLIKARPOVICH

1959

1,260

504/06

STRELTSOV

VIKTOR LVOVICH

1934

2,600

6552/06

NEDAVNIY

YURIY ALEKSANDROVICH

19651 , 479

12747/06

MOISEYEV

ALEKSANDR GRIGORYEVICH

1956

1,810

14501/06

BELAN

VLADIMIR GRIGORYEVICH

1938

790

19063/06

ORLOV

YURIY ALEKSEYEVICH

19642 , 645

19096/06

SHMAKOV

ALEKSEY PETROVICH

1949

4,827

22627/06

KRASNOSLOBODTSEV

YURIY VLADIMIROVICH

1960

1,970

22630/06

MUKHIN

NIKOLAY SERGEYEVICH

1961

1,300

27128/06

VORONKOV

PETR IVANOVICH

1955

1,960

30438/06

YARENKO

ANATOLIY SERGEYEVICH

1948

1,085

32424/06

ATAYAN

PALMIRO APETNAKOVICH

1949

2,247

44825/06

SOBOLEVA

NADEZHDA MIKHAYLOVNA

1967

4,000

50529/06

GUSAKOV

ALEKSANDR ALEKSANDROVICH

1976

1,650

2336/07

PONOMAREV

ALEKSANDR VASILYEVICH

19531 , 517

2666/07

BURCHIKOV

GENNADIY NIKOLAYEVICH

1956

1,382

4547/07

TKACHENKO

VLADIMIR VIKTOROVICH

1963

995

5412/07

KASHPEROV

VALERIY GRIGORYEVICH

1954

95 8 [2]

6541/07

KAMAYEV

VALENTIN MIKHAYLOVICH

1948

1,350

19223/07

BORISOVA

TAMARA ALEKSEYEVNA

19581 , 780

BORISOV

ALEKSANDR IVANOVICH

1951

25310/07

BORISOV

ALEKSANDR IVANOVICH

1951

19517/07

FINKLER

SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH

19691 , 046

19578/07

LOZOVOY

FEDOR FEDOROVICH

1943

861

19960/07

KUZNETSOV

IVAN VASILYEVICH

1956

921

19968/07

VASILYEV

NIKOLAY IVANOVICH

1949

800

22637/07

IVANOVA

NATALYA SERGEYEVNA

1981

5 , 000

28437/07

OSOVSKIY

NIKOLAY ALEKSANDROVICH

1945

702

29960/07

ALEKSEYENKO

SERGEY VLADIMIROVICH

1951

756

30461/07

RYABOKON

VALERIY IVANOVICH

1960

700

32340/07

STOVBUL

KONSTANTIN KONSTANTINOVICH

1952

823

32342/07

ALEKSEYCHUK

VLADIMIR STEPANOVICH

1951

690

36860/07

PURYATKIN

FEDOR ALEKSEYEVICH

1949

710

38534/07

TSAP

VLADIMIR IVANOVICH

19591 , 600

44561/07

BARMA

VASILIY PETROVICH

1948

995

44867/07

SAFONOV

YEVGENIY NIKOLAYEVICH

1948

3,236

44879/07

ZHIRNOV

NIKOLAY BORISOVICH

1963

982

55317/07

KOZIY

GEORGIY YURYEVICH

1951

923

55331/07

BELOUSOV

SERGEY IVANOVICH

1953

960

55604/07

GUREYEV

GENNADIY GENNADYEVICH

1961

4,900

56122/07

VOLOSHCHENKO

GENNADIY VALENTINOVICH

1970

4,800

79/08

SIDOROV

PETR ILYICH

1948

655

326/08

SULEYMANOV

SHAKHRUTDIN ABDRASHITOVICH

1955

1,550

3716/08

KOTOV

ALEKSANDR VASILYEVICH

1948

900

5105/08

KISELEV

VIKTOR VASILYEVICH

1950

900

9478/08

RADOVNYA

NIKOLAY SERAFIMOVICH

1956

712

10608/08

ZHURBA

DMITRIY VLADIMIROVICH

1948

825

10670/08

SIROTIN

NIKOLAY IVANOVICH

1951

885

38027/08

ZOLOYEV

STANISLAV SERGEYEVICH

1956

2,300

39217/08

MAKAROVA

VALENTINA NIKOLAYEVNA

1953

750

52350/08

MAKAROV

FEDOR IVANOVICH

1948

750

59369/08

TERNOVOY

KONSTANTIN VIKTOROVICH

1982

3,200

59888/08

MASHUKOV

ARTUR SHAFIGOVICH

1976

3,200

60729/08

KOLTSOV

MIKHAIL YURYEVICH

1970

3,700

60995/08

SHADOV

RUSLAN KIMOVICH

19783 , 200

1724/09

BOGDANOV

DMITRIY YURYEVICH

19702 , 100

[1] Rectified on 6 October 2010: the amount was “1,200”

[2] Rectified on 6 October 2010: the amount was “956”

Menu

SHEVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

SHEVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI