USKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 6394/05 • ECHR ID: 001-95993
Document date: November 12, 2009
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 10 March 2010
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
Application no. 6394/05 by Viktor Mikhaylovich USKOV and 17 other applications (nos. 7144/05, 9464/05, 10542/05, 30006/06, 39119/06, 50742/06, 2229/07, 5951/07, 31624/07, 31698/07, 51340/07, 51342/07, 9463/08, 13132/08, 16251/08, 16849/08 and 39590/08) against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis , President, Nina Vajić , Anatoly Kovler , Khanlar Hajiyev , Dean Spielmann , 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 100 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.
U nder domestic law the applicants we re entitled to social benefits. Because the State failed to pay these benefits in full or in time, the applicants sought relief in the courts. The courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay arrears and to upgrade periodic payments. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement .
COMPLAINT
The applicant s complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments and assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the proceedings.
THE LAW
In July 2009 the Government submitted to the Court unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issue raised by the applications. The Government requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declarations read as follows:
“[T]he Russian authorities acknowledge the excessive duration of the enforcement of [the applicants ' judgments].
The authorities are ready to pay [the applicants] ex gratia [the sums tabulated below].
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 objected to these declarations in principle and requested the Court to continue the adversarial proceedings. Some applicants agreed with the sums offered but insisted that their applications may be struck out only after the payment. They also noted that the Government had not acknowledged a breach of the Convention. Some applicants disagreed with the sums offered, but accepted the declarations for want of better options. Some applicants asked the Court to stop the proceedings having lost belief in their favourable outcome. Some applicants accepted the declarations entirely.
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 [ bec a me ] 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).
Having regard to the acknowledgement contained in the declarations together with the amounts of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. Moreover, the Court is 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 matte r in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention (see the Committee ' s decisions of 14-15 September 2009 concerning the implementation of the Burdov ( n o. 2) judgment, CM/De l/Dec(2009)1065 ). 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 strike the application s out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President
ANNEX
Application no.
Applicant
Born
Sum
6394/05
Uskov Viktor Mikhaylovich
1939
2 050 €
7144/05
Paramonov Viktor Vasilyevich
1941
3 350 €
9464/05
Shniolis Stanislavas Alfonso
1942
2 050 €
10542/06
Kirillov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich
1958
2 050 €
30006/06
Gorokhov Dmitriy Ivanovich
1952
2 050 €
Rusyayev Rostislav Vladimirovich
1961
2 050 €
39119/06
Stankevich Yuriy Aleksandrovich
1955
1 400 €
50742/06
Sergeyenko Georgiy Andreyevich
1937
2 050 €
2229/07
Ignatyev Yuriy Ivanovich
1951
2 700 €
5951/07
Khaliullin Rakip Gabdulkhayevich
1949
2 700 €
31624/07
Nasilnikov Ivan Ivanovich
1950
2 700 €
31698/07
Neznanov Anatoliy Aleksandrovich
1957
2 050 €
51340/07
Minasyan Samvel Sarkisovich
1951
2 050 €
Pavlov Nikolay Georgiyevich
1946
2 050 €
Sazykin Aleksandr Stepanovich
1952
2 050 €
Denisenko Ivan Pavlovich
1947
2 050 €
Pavlov Aleksandr Aleksandrovich
1955
2 050 €
Dydar Valeriy Vladimirovich
1967
2 050 €
Kruglov Vladimir Mikhaylovich
1945
2 050 €
Snezhko Valentin Dmitriyevich
1943
2 050 €
Mayorov Nikolay Ivanovich
1943
2 050 €
Tretyakov Igor Aleksandrovich
1954
2 050 €
Makagonov Grigoriy Nikolayevich
1949
2 050 €
Reznikov Viktor Stepanovich
1955
2 050 €
Merzlikin Yuriy Petrovich
1947
2 050 €
Vanzha Grigoriy Nikolayevich
1953
2 050 €
Terekhov Anatoliy Nikolayevich
1949
2 050 €
Kuznetsov Pyotr Ivanovich
1951
2 050 €
Martynov Vladimir Iliych
1954
2 050 €
Nechayev Vasiliy Markovich
1950
2 050 €
Borzov Vladimir Mikhaylovich
1951
2 050 €
Nazarenko Grigoriy Romanovich
1947
2 050 €
Yakovenko Nikolay Fyodorovich
1947
2 050 €
Drozdov Viktor Alekseyevich
1947
2 050 €
Seletskiy Vladimir Nikolayevich
1950
2 050 €
Koda Anatoliy Vasilyevich
1954
2 050 €
Achagov Aleksandr Anatolyevich
1959
2 050 €
Borovikov Vasiliy Vasiliyevich
1947
2 050 €
Kozub Vladimir Andreyevich
1945
2 050 €
Ilyenko Vladimir Nikolayevich
1943
2 050 €
Khodakovskiy Grigoriy Iosifovich
1950
2 050 €
Frolov Gennadiy Alekseyevich
1945
2 050 €
51342/07
Belov Vladimir Vladimirovich
1946
1 400 €
Berezhnoy Yuriy Mikaylovich
1951
1 400 €
Beloverbenko Anatoliy Valentinovich
1954
1 400 €
Burtan Yuriy Anatolyevich
1961
1 400 €
Bykovskiy Pyotr Pavlovich
1944
1 400 €
Varlamov Fyodor Alekseyevich
1965
1 400 €
Vikhtevskiy Anatoliy Nikolayevich
1952
1 400 €
Volchenko Vladimir Petrovich
1951
1 400 €
Gavrilov Yevgeniy Vladimirovich
1951
1 400 €
Gonchar Nikolay P avlo vich [1]
1950
1 400 €
Gres Dmitriy Alekseyevich
1952
1 400 €
Davydenko Yuriy Sergeyevich
1966
1 400 €
Denisenko Aleksey Grigoryevich
1952
1 400 €
Dobrovolskiy Vladimir Alekseyevich
1955
1 400 €
Yevdokimenko Nikolay Mikaylovich
1946
1 400 €
Ivanitskiy Vasiliy Romanovich
1954
1 400 €
Ignatenko Anatoliy Nikolayevich
1953
1 400 €
Ishekov Anatoliy Alekseyevich
1948
1 400 €
Kazakov Leonid Yegorovich
1945
1 400 €
Kovyazov Andrey Georgiyevich
1965
1 400 €
Kozhurin Yevgeniy Vladimirovich
1958
1 400 €
Kornienko Leonid Grigoryevich
1956
1 400 €
Koroshchenko Aleksandr Vladimirovich
1960
1 400 €
Koshel Dmitriy Ivanovich
1949
1 400 €
Kushnarenko Pavel Vasilyevich
1952
1 400 €
Lavrov Aleksandr Valentinovich
1953
1 400 €
Lebed Georgiy Kupriyanovich
1952
1 400 €
Litvinenko Pyotr Nikolayevich
1947
1 400 €
Luyenko Nikolay Ivanovich
1949
1 400 €
Makarenko Nikolay Grigoryevich
1951
1 400 €
Marukhno Nikolay Aleksandrovich
1957
1 400 €
Migel Yuriy Vasilyevich
1966
1 400 €
Mosin Aleksandr Vasilyevich
1965
1 400 €
Nehrist Vladimir Grigoryevich
1947
1 400 €
Novakov Viktor Georgiyevich
1956
1 400 €
Pozhidayev Vladimir Nikolayevich
1950
1 400 €
Orda Aleksandr Ivanovich
1952
1 400 €
Reznik Vasiliy Stepanovich
1952
1 400 €
Semko Aleksandr Grigoryevich
1964
1 400 €
Singayevskiy Ivan Stanislavovich
1951
1 400 €
Sirota Aleksandr Alekseyevich
1951
1 400 €
Sokolov Vitaliy Leonidovich
1955
1 400 €
Stratiy Viktor Mikhaylovich
1953
1 400 €
Stupak Nikolay Ivanovich
1950
1 400 €
Sukmanov Vladimir Ivanovich
1952
1 400 €
Tkachenko Nikolay Ivanovich
1943
1 400 €
Troyanov Georgiy Vasilyevich
1950
1 400 €
Fomenko Vladimir Sergeyevich
1951
1 400 €
Cherednichenko Ivan Ivanovich
1954
1 400 €
Chernomordov Valeriy Ivanovich
1950
1 400 €
Shabelnikov Aleksandr Ivanovich
1951
1 400 €
Shayturov Mikhail Pavlovich
1955
1 400 €
Shapovalov Vladimir Yakovlevich
1952
1 400 €
Shulga Aleksandr Petrovich
1965
1 400 €
9463/08
Gribanenkov Sergey Vasilyevich
1949
2 050 €
13132/08
Alekseyeva Valentina Nikolayevna
1948
2 050 €
16251/08
Boytsov Vladimir Vitaliyevich
1954
2 050 €
16849/08
Zhilinskiy Anatoliy Mikhaylovich
1929
1 400 €
39590/08
Bogach Igor Ivanovich
1959
4 000 €
[1] Rectified on 10 March 2010 : the text was “ Gonchar Nikolay Petrovich ”
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
