SOBOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 11373/03, 14008/03, 34929/03, 35876/03, 929/04, 27237/04, 29174/04, 29936/04, 32459/04, 33986/04, 36... • ECHR ID: 001-99777
Document date: June 24, 2010
- Inbound citations: 11
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 1
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 16 November 2010 , 28 February 2011 and 24 November 2011 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
Application no. 11373/03 by Anatoliy Nikolayevich SOBOL and 35 other applications against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis , President, Nina Vajić , Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Giorgio Malinverni , George Nicolaou , 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 ( n o. 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 application s out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ repl ies to th ose declaration s,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant s are 81 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.
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 . Certain others failed to reply . A majority of the applicants disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. S everal applicants furthermore challenged the modalities of the execution of their judgments at the domestic level and, in particular, alleged inadequate indexation of regular payments in comparison with the inflation rate in the country. Finally, some applicants cast doubts as to whether the Government acknowledged the violations and would comply with their terms once the Court struck the applications out of its list.
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 ) .
Insofar as several applicants contest the execution modalities, the Court reiterates that such grievances must be first and foremost submitted to domestic courts, which are better placed than the Court to ascertain the compliance with the Russian law in this area, including the specific index-linking requirements provided therein (see Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 14330/07 et al ., 5 February 2009).
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.
As regards the question of implementation of the Government ’ s undertakings raised by certain applicants, 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)158 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) ).
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 out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President
ANNEX
Application n o.
Last name
Forename
Born
Compensation offered ( euro s)
1
Loading citations...11373/03
SOBOL
ANATOLIY NIKOLAYEVICH
1958
2240 . 00
2
14008/03
RYCHKOV
ALEKSANDR MIKHAYLOVICH
1953
2000 . 00
3
34929/03
PLYUSHCH
OLEG VYACHESLAVOVICH
1976
680 . 00
4
35876/03
MOSHKOVSKIY
VADIM FEDOROVICH
1943
1500 . 00
5
27237/04
ZHILYAKOV
VLADIMIR ALEKSANDROVICH
1947
2000 . 00
6
29174/04
ISMIYEV
ALEKSANDR MAMEDOVICH
1946
4800 . 00
7
29936/04
MAZUR
OLEG VASILYEVICH
1966
2000 . 00
8
32459/04
STOKOLEVA
MARINA VASILYEVNA
1959
3471 . 00
BORODINA
NATALYA VIKTOROVNA
1970
4000 . 00
REDKINA
LYUBOV VIKTOROVNA
1974
4000 . 00
ZHUKOVA
ZINAIDA NIKOLAYEVNA
1952
3468 . 00
9
33986/04
LISYANSKIY
BORIS GEORGIYEVICH
1946
2200 . 00
10
36053/04
KIRICHENKO
LYUBOV FEDOROVNA
1957
3700 . 00
SUSLOVA
MARIYA DMITRIYEVNA
1956
3200 . 00
MINAKOVA
SVETLANA ALEKSANDROVNA
1962
3200 . 00
11
38750/04
LEPESHKOVA
YEVGENIYA IVANOVNA
1951
3000 . 00
12
40366/04
PETROV
ALEKSANDR NIKOLAYEVICH
-
1600 . 00
13
41745/04
ZAKHAROVA
IRINA MAKARYEVNA
1919
3450 . 00
14
929/04
GLAZKOV
VLADIMIR ANDREYEVICH
1941
1500 . 00
15
10525/05
KUZIN
YURIY GEORGIYEVICH
1947
1860 . 00
16
11946/05
KRECHETOV
ALEKSANDR IVANOVICH
1956
1065 . 00
17
12178/05
CHUDINOV
NIKOLAY MATVEYEVICH
1943
2300 . 00
18
1862/05
CHERNOV
BORIS KONSTANTINOVICH
1938
4700 . 00
CHERNOVA
VALENTINA PETROVNA
1937
3200 . 00
19
21154/05
FROLETSKAYA
MARINA NIKOLAYEVNA
1961
3800 . 00
20
30880/05
TARKHOVA
SVETLANA VALENTINOVNA
1956
3800 . 00
21
40158/05
BORODINA
YELIZAVETA EMANUILOVNA
1947
2600 . 00
22
10624/06
BORISKINA
VALENTINA ANTONOVNA
1950
1640 . 00
ALEKSEYEV
VYACHESLAV VSEVOLODOVICH
1945
1640 . 00
BARYSHEVA
MARIYA STEPANOVNA
1943
1640 . 00
DUBINKINA
VALENTINA SERGEYEVNA
1952
1640 . 00
DYAGOLCHENKO
VIKTOR GRIGORYEVICH
1956
1640 . 00
GRIGORYEVA
ANTONINA VASILYEVNA
1930
1640 . 00
GURINA
VALENTINA FILIPOVNA
1941
1640 . 00
KALOSHIN
VIKTOR VASILYEVICH
1950
1640 . 00
KASHIRSKAYA
ANNA VASILYEVNA
1944
1640 . 00
KHRAPOV
VITALIY VASILYEVICH
1971
1640 . 00
KIZINA
SVETLANA VIKTOROVNA
1976
1640 . 00
KOSTINA
ZINAIDA IVANOVNA
1941
1640 . 00
KRAVTSOV
ALEKSANDR ALEKSANDROVICH
1964
1640 . 00
MILYAYEV
VASILIY TIMOFEYEVICH
1949
1640 . 00
MUKHORTOVA
VALENTINA GEORGIYEVNA
1957
1640 . 00
PLUZHNIKOVA
LYUDMILA MIKHAYLOVNA
1952
1640 . 00
POPOVA
ZINAIDA MIKHAYLOVNA
1966
1640 . 00
SAFONOVA
TATYANA NIKOLAYEVNA
1953
1640 . 00
SEREBRYANSKAYA
GALINA PAVLOVNA
1946
1640 . 00
SHMARINA
IRINA ALEKSEYEVNA
1979
1640 . 00
SOKRYUKINA
NADEZHDA ALEKSEYEVNA
1946
1640 . 00
YERMAKOVA
GALINA ALEKSEYEVNA
1972
1640 . 00
YERMAKOVA
YELENA ALEKSANDROVNA
1958
1640 . 00
23
26356/06
FILONOV
ALEKSANDR GRIGORYEVICH
1938
2500 . 00
24
27399/06
ARIPSHEV
ZAMIR ASLANBIYEVICH
1980
4000 . 00
25
29210/06
OSOVSKIY
NIKOLAY ALEKSANDROVICH
1945
2900 . 00
2 6
35448/06
PANKOV
ANDREY VLADIMIROVICH
1977
1050 . 00
2 7
40922/06
POPOV
NIKOLAY NIKOLAYEVICH
1953
4000 . 00
2 8
4880/06
POTSELUYEV
VALERIY YEVGENYEVICH
1973
1000 . 00
29
50596/06
VALUYEV
ANATOLIY GRIGORYEVICH
1938
1200 . 00
3 0
8422/06
LIKHACHEV
SERGEY PETROVICH
1954
1240 . 00
3 1
25179/07
ALBEGOV
GENNADIY NIKOLAYEVICH
1968
1781 . 00
AMILA KHANOV [1]
YURIY GUSINOVICH
1958
1691 . 00
ATAYEV
VALERIY YURYEVICH
1965
1568 . 00
BOTSIYEV
KHETAG SERGEYEVICH
1958
1363 . 00
DAVYDOV
GENNADIY VIKTOROVICH
1965
1796 . 00
DZHIGKAYEV
OLEG SOSLANOVICH
1960
1796 . 00
FEOFANIDI
IORDAM [2] GEORGIYEVICH
1962
1567 . 00
GABIYEV
GEORGIY GRAMITONOVICH
1973
1537 . 00
GASANOVA
RAISA GEORGIYEVNA
193613 7 3 . 00 [3]
GUDIYEV
KHADZHIMURAT KHETAGOVICH
1964
1625 . 00
GUDIYEV
KHASAN KHETAGOVICH
1966
1712 . 00
KAIROV
VYACHESLAV BORISOVICH
1968
1370 . 00
KAIROV
GEORGIY BORISOVICH
1966
1370 . 00
KACHMAZOV
AMIRAN ILYICH
1943
1593 . 00
LOLAYEV
ALAN RUSLANOVICH
1967
1442 . 00
POPOV
ANTON MIKHAYLOVICH
1972
1915 . 00
STEPKIN
ALEKSANDR ANATOLYEVICH
1954
1636 . 00
TOKAZOV
MURAT ASLANBEKOVICH
1969
1581 . 00
3 2
34605/07
NOSOV
ALEKSANDR ALBERTOVICH
1960
2600 . 00
3 3
35725/07
KOMAROV
VASILIY NIKOLAYEVICH
1940
750 . 00
3 4
3738/07
LUKIN
BORIS NIKOLAYEVICH
1946
900 . 00
3 5
39663/07
MALINOVA
NADEZHDA IVANOVNA
1971
2500 . 00
3 6
4109/08
ZHOGIN
ANATOLIY MIKHAYLOVICH
1967
960 . 00
[1] . Rectified on 28 February 2011: the surname was “AMILOKHANOV”
[2] . Rectified on 24 November 2011: the first name was “ IORDAN”
[3] . Rectified on 16 November 2010 : the sum was “ 1363.00 ”