Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

ALEKSENTSEVA and 28 Others against Russia (nos. 75025/01, 75026/01, 75027/01, 75028/01, 75029/01, 75030/01, 75031/01, 75032/01, 75033/01, 75034/01, 75035/01, 75036/01, 75037/01, 75038/01, 75136/01, 76386/01, 76542/01, 76736/01, 77049/01, 77051/01, 77052/01, 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02, 8190/02 and 8192/02) [*]

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr E. Levits , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Deputy Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates set out in the appended schedule,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are clean-up workers of the Chernobyl nuclear accident site or dependants of deceased workers. They all live in the town of Shakhty, the Rostov Region.

On the dates set out in the schedule the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments in their favour. The judgments were made against the local social security offices and the latter were ordered to pay the applicants certain amounts.

When the applications were lodged with this Court, the judgments had not been enforced.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of final judgments in their favour.

THE LAW

1. By letter of 22 October 2002 the Government expressly acknowledged that there had been a violation of the Convention in the applicants ’ cases and informed the Court that they had paid the arrears and compensation for non-enforcement and were prepared to pay additional compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 4 January 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Government in respect of each applicant:

“I declare that the Russian authorities have already paid the sums due under the domestic judgment, of which the applicant complains. In addition, we offer to pay the amount of EUR [1,500 or 3,000, depending on the period when the judgment remained unenforced] to [the respective applicant ’ s name] in respect of the application no. [the respective application number] on an ex gratia basis for the withdrawal of [his/her] application pending before the Court. This sum (EUR [1,500/3,000]) shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable converted in Russian roubles on the date of payment, free of any taxes that may be applicable, within three months after the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The applicants, in their written replies, rejected the Government ’ s initiative. They did not dispute the receipt of outstanding amounts due to them, but they argued that the amounts, as determined by the domestic courts and social security offices and the basis applied for their indexation, had been unsatisfactory.

2. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of 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 considers that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a declaration by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Relevant factors in this respect include the nature of the complaints made, whether the issues raised are comparable to issues already determined by the Court in previous cases, the nature and scope of any measures taken by the respondent Government in the context of the execution of judgments delivered by the Court in any such previous cases, and the impact of these measures on the case at issue (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 76, ECHR 2003 ‑ ...). Other relevant factors may include the question of whether the respondent Government have made any admissions in relation to the alleged violations of the Convention and, if so, the scope of such admissions and the manner in which they intend to provide redress to the applicant ( ibid. )

3. First, the Court notes that the complaints made by the applicants in this case were of a pecuniary nature and concerned an alleged violation of their rights to have a final court decision, made in their favour against a State authority, enforced. Their complaints are similar to those made in the Burdov v. Russia case ( Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002 ‑ III, admissibility decision of 21 June 2001, judgment of 7 May 2002). The applicants come from the same area as Mr Burdov and the judgments in their favour were made against the same State agency.

As to the measures taken by the Government in the execution of the Burdov judgment, the Court notes the following developments in the Russian Federation.

On 24 October 2000, in response to an inquiry of the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, a deputy Prime Minister reported that the federal budget for the fiscal year 2000 allocated 800 million Russian roubles specifically for payments to former Chernobyl clean-up workers.

On 25 October 2000 the upper chamber of the Russian parliament examined the information received from the Government and requested the Government to ensure payment of all allowances to Chernobyl clean-up workers in full and on time. It also offered the lower chamber to provide in the next year ’ s budget for a special allocation to this category of payments.

Also, the Court notes that during the examination of the Burdov case at the 810th (October 2002) and 819th (December 2002) meetings of the Committee of Ministers, the Russian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers of a number of measures adopted in response to the judgment in the Burdov case, including, in particular, payment of arrears because of the non-execution of domestic judgments ordering the payment of allowances for the victims of Chernobyl (a total of 284,6 million roubles were paid between January and October 2002).

The Court next notes that the Government paid in full all the amounts due to the applicants in the present cases. In their letter of 22 October 2002 the Government, with reference to the Burdov judgment, admitted that the present cases were substantially similar to the Burdov case and that there had also been a violation in the present cases as well. The Government also reported to the Court that they had paid the arrears, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount determined by the Russian courts for a failure to execute the final decisions on time. In addition to this payment, the Government confirmed their readiness to pay non-pecuniary damage to the applicants similar to the amount awarded by the Court to Mr Burdov.

The Court recalls that in cases in which it is possible to eliminate the effects of an alleged violation and the Government declare their readiness to do so, the intended redress is more likely to be regarded as appropriate for the purposes of striking out the application, the Court, as always, retaining its power to restore the application to its list as provided in Article 37 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 5 of the Rules of Court (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], cited above, § 76 in fine ).

The Court has examined the Government ’ s submissions and the terms of their declarations. Having regard to the fact that the Government did not dispute the facts, acknowledged the violation, provided appropriate redress and expressed their readiness to pay specifically indicated additional amounts to cover any damages and costs, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Having regard to these considerations and also to the fact that the execution of the Burdov judgment is currently under supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine ) does not require it to continue the examination of the applications.

Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President

SCHEDULE

NAME OF APPLICANT

APPLICATION NO .

DATE OF INTRODUCTION

JUDGMENT CONCERNING

SUSPENSION OF COMPENSATION

INDEXATION OF 1996/1997 AWARD

JUDGMENT CONCERNING AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION

Usanov Gennadiy Pavlovich

75030/01

01/08/2001

03/03/1997

04/02/2000

05/08/1999

Zolotukhin Oleg Sergeyevich

75032/01

23/07/2001

19/02/1997

23/08/2000

13/05/1999

Gaydukov Stepan Vladimirovich

75038/01

25/07/2001

17/02/1997

09/03/2000

30/04/1999

Dremlyugin Vladimir Nikolayevich

75136/01

14/08/2001

17/02/1997

09/03/2000

30/04/1999

Frolov Vladimir Nikolayevich

77051/01

31/10/2001

17/02/1997

04/02/2000

01/07/1999

Pakhmonov Vladimir Nikolayevich

3999/02

13/12/2001

20/02/1997

23/08/2000

24/05/1999

Ochiyev Vitaliy Fedorovich

5388/02

11/12/2001

18/02/1997

23/08/2000

21/05/1999

Saplenkov Vladimir Ivanovich

8190/02

23/07/2001

17/02/1997

04/02/2000

28/07/1999

Gladkov Anatoliy Andreyevich

75026/01

01/08/2001

17/03/1997

not requested

05/07/1999

Shabalin Boris Federovich

75027/01

23/07/2001

18/03/1997

not requested

06/07/1999

Mandrykin Vladimir Aleksandrovich

75028/01

23/07/2001

08/04/1997

not requested

17/04/1997

09/07/1999

Lobanov Vladimir Ivanovich

75029/01

01/08/2001

19/03/1997

not requested

21/05/1999

Olishchuk Ivan Vladimirovich

75031/01

01/08/2001

19/02/1997

not requested

24/06/1999

Chernyshkov Aleksandr Ivanovich

75034/01

09/08/2001

26/02/2001

not requested

31/03/1999

Shishkov Aleksey Ivanovich

75035/01

09/08/2001

19/03/1997

not requested

30/04/2000

Avsetsin Nikolay Fedorovich

75036/01

25/07/2001

28/02/1997

not requested

04/06/1999

Grechko Valeriy Viktorovich

75037/01

25/07/2001

28/02/1998

not requested

07/07/1999

Kosygin Vyacheslav Fedorovich

76386/01

15/10/2001

07/04/1997

not requested

25/05/1999

09/07/1999

Kot Gennadiy Iosifovich

76542/01

02/10/2001

25/02/1997

not requested

28/06/2000

Sevostyanov Viktor Sergeyevich

76736/01

22/10/2001

22/04/1997

not requested

09/06/1999

Paramonov Vladimir Alekseyevich

77053/01

05/09/2001

28/02/1997

not requested

24/06/1999

Novikov Nikolay Nikolayevich

5384/02

28/11/2001

11/12/1996

not requested

03/06/1999

Aleksentseva Valentina Dmitriyevna

75025/01

01/08/2001

none

―

06/07/1999

Vazhenin Nikolay Yegorovich

75033/01

01/08/2001

none

―

07/10/1999

Suvorova Svetlana Anatloyevna

77049/01

06/09/2001

none

―

21/02/2000

Klimchuk Yevgeniy Vladimirovich

77052/01

29/10/2001

none

―

04/10/1999

Suyev Dmitriy Nikolayevich

5314/02

10/08/2001

none

―

24/06/1999

Fedorenko Aleksandr Grigoryevich

5419/02

28/11/2001

none

―

03/09/1998

15/07/1999

Panteleyev Yuriy Vasilyevich

8192/02

10/08/2001

none

―

17/06/1999

[*] The names of the applicants are listed in the Schedule.

Menu

ALEKSENTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

ALEKSENTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI