THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 78495/12 Genrikh Nikolayevich AGASIYEV and O thers against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President, Anja Seibert- Fohr , Andreas Zünd , judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 August 2012,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicants are forty-nine Russian nationals. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2 . On 23 October 2018 the applicant Mr Soslan Archilovich Muzayev died. In March 2020 the applicant’s widow, Mrs Fatima Beslanovna Besolova , born in 1959, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings in the late applicant’s stead.

3 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin , the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

4 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

5 . The applicants are acting or former police officers. In 2004-2006 they were issued with certificates of “combat operations veteran” as they had performed their service in North Ossetia in the wake of the Ossetian-Ingush conflict in October and November 1992 or, in some cases, in Dagestan. A veteran certificate confirms a holder’s title to various allowances in connection with his or her participation in combat operations specified in the Veterans Act.

6 . In 2007 the authorities revealed irregularities in issuing such certificates in North Ossetia. In 2008 a local Commission for Issuing the Certificates of Combat Operations Veteran (“the commission”) annulled the applicants’ certificates. According to regulations in force at that time, the commission was competent to examine the applications from the claimants in North Ossetia and to issue certificates, but not to annul those already issued. The applicants challenged the annulment in courts.

7 . By separate judgments listed in the Appendix (“the initial judgments”) the Sovetskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz granted the applicants’ claims, having found that the above regulations did not confer on the commission a power to annul certificates or to review their lawfulness. The courts accordingly ordered, in each case, “... to declare unlawful actions of the officials of the North Ossetian Ministry of the Interior in respect of annulment of [the applicant’s] veteran certificate”. The judgments, some of which were upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia, entered into force on the dates indicated in the Appendix.

8 . In reply to some of the applicants’ request for clarifications, the first ‑ instance court ruled that the judgments constituted a basis for a reinstatement of the applicants’ veteran status and of their entitlement to relevant allowances. In June 2009 those clarifications were set aside in the final instance by the Supreme Court of North Ossetia, and the applicants’ requests dismissed. The appellate court found that such clarifications amounted to a change of the contents of the initial judgments, whilst there had been no basis for such a broad interpretation in domestic law.

9 . In January 2009 the North Ossetian Ministry of the Interior adopted new regulations on the commission and repealed the earlier ones. According to the new regulations, the commission was competent to review lawfulness of earlier decisions to issue veteran certificates, as well as to review, supplement and modify relevant records.

10 . Between 23 January and 24 July 2009 a newly-created commission, established in line with the above order, examined the applicants’ cases and found that during the relevant period of time the applicants had performed their service in the areas which had not been listed in the Veterans Act. Therefore, they were not eligible to the veteran status within the meaning of that Act. The commission accordingly annulled their veteran certificates. The applicants did not appeal against those new refusals.

11 . They subsequently sued various authorities for compensation of non ‑ pecuniary damage caused by a failure to respect the initial judgments, as well as for unpaid allowances and for a supplement to their pensions allegedly due to them as veterans.

12 . By separate judgments of 22 and 30 April 2010 given in respect of two groups of the applicants the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz rejected their claims for non-pecuniary damage, referring to the lack of fault in the actions of the authorities. The courts observed that the decisions of May 2008 to annul the certificates had indeed been found unlawful by the domestic courts. However, at a later stage a competent commission had again examined their individual cases and had issued new decisions on the matter, but the applicants had not appealed against them. The judgments were upheld on appeal on 6 July and 22 June 2010, respectively.

13 . By a judgment of 1 September 2011 the Sovetskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz dismissed their claim for unpaid allowances (as upheld on appeal on 8 November 2011). The court reiterated that the judgments listed in the Appendix had not concerned the applicants’ eligibility to veteran status, allowances or an increased pension, but had dealt with a procedural irregularity on the part of the authorities, successfully rectified in 2009. The court found established that the applicants were not entitled to veteran certificates and relevant allowances. The applicants’ subsequent application for supervisory review and their ensuing cassation appeal were also dismissed, the latest decision was taken on 2 February 2012 by a judge of the Supreme Court of Russia.

14 . In 2012 forty-five of the applicants brought court actions under the Compensation Act, seeking compensation for a violation of their right to have the initial judgments enforced in good time. On 4 May 2012 their claims were rejected by the appellate instance of the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia, as the Compensation Act as in force at the material time did not apply to judgments imposing obligations in kind on the authorities.

THE LAW

15 . The Court notes that the applicant Mr S.A. Muzayev passed away and that his widow expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead (see paragraph 2 above). The Government agreed that Mrs F.B. Besolova could continue the proceedings in the applicant’s stead. Therefore, and having regard to its case-law concerning similar complaints under the Convention (see Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia , nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, §§ 36-42, 29 July 2010), the Court considers that Mrs F.B. Besolova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in late Mr S.A. Muzayev’s stead.

16 . The applicants complained that the initial judgments had not been enforced, that their veteran certificates had been annulled in disregard of those judgments and that their claims for damage had been unfairly rejected, claiming that each of them had remained entitled to veteran status and relevant allowances. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 6

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

17 . The Government argued that the judgments had not imposed on the authorities an obligation to confer veteran status on the applicants or to provide them with allowances, but had only concerned procedural irregularities in the first round of the proceedings before the commission. The authorities had rectified those shortcomings in good time, as in 2009 new regulations had been adopted, and a competent commission had reviewed the applicants’ individual cases and had found that none of them had been entitled to a veteran status. The applicants had not appealed against those decisions. Lastly, their subsequent claims for compensation had been lawfully rejected by well-reasoned decisions.

18 . The Court reiterates that in determining whether or not the judgment was enforced, the Court should, in principle, rely on the findings made by the domestic courts, since its role in this matter is essentially subsidiary to that of the domestic authorities, who are better placed and equipped to assess the particular manner in which the enforcement should be carried out and the debtor’s compliance with the enforcement modalities (see Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, § 173, 1 July 2014).

19 . The Court notes that by several final domestic decisions (see paragraphs 8 , 12 and 13 above) the domestic courts consistently held that the scope of initial judgments had been confined to the issue of the authorities’ compliance with the relevant domestic procedure, and that the domestic courts had not determined the individual applicants’ eligibility to veteran status or social benefits in those proceedings. The Court finds nothing in the case material to reach a different conclusion and agrees that the initial judgments did not confer either veteran status or any entitlement to social benefits on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , Teteriny v. Russia , no. 11931/03, §§ 29-30, 30 June 2005). Accordingly, the complaint in this part is incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

20 . In so far as the initial judgments can be interpreted as confirming the applicants’ right to have their cases examined within a due domestic procedure and notably by a competent authority, the Court notes that the authorities took measures to make good the shortcomings revealed by the initial judgments in good time – that is, as early as in 2009, when the new regulations on the commission were adopted, and a newly-created commission competent to examine the issue re-examined the applicants’ cases (see paragraph 10 above). The applicants did not appeal against the second set of decisions annulling their certificates. The Court further notes that those decisions – as well as all subsequent court judgments (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above) – had been given more than six months from the date of introduction of the applicants’ complaint to this Court; and that, in any event, the courts in those proceedings consistently assessed the commission’s findings as lawful and made in due procedure.

21 . It follows that the non-enforcement complaint in this part, as well as the applicants’ complaints about the alleged failure to correctly determine their claims for damage and unpaid social benefits, must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

22 . Lastly, the parties were invited to comment whether the applicants had had an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaint within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.

23 . The Court has found above that the non-enforcement complaint did not give rise to an arguable claim of a breach of a Convention right. Accordingly, Article 13 of the Convention does not apply. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides that Mrs F.B. Besolova has standing to pursue the application in late Mr S.A. Muzayev’s stead;

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 June 2021 . {signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova Georges Ravarani Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

N o .

The applicant’s name

Birth year

Place of residence

Date of the judgment,

final on

Genrikh Nikolayevich AGASIYEV

1960Vladikavkaz

11/12/2008

10/02/2009

Bakhram Agabekovich AGABEKOV

1969Vladikavkaz

Vasiliy Vladimirovich CHERTKOYEV

1956V. Saniba

Soslan Archilovich MUZAYEV

Legal heir:

Mrs Fatima Beslanovna BESOLOVA

1954(died in 2018)

Vladikavkaz

Vladimir Vasilyevich AGAFONOV

1948Vladikavkaz

11/12/2008

10/02/2009

Ruslan Yasonovich BAGIYEV

1963Vladikavkaz

Kazbek Muratbekovich BITIMIROV

1960Beslan

Oleg Konstantinovich BITSOYEV

1960Mizur

Gennadiy Viktorovich DAVYDOV

1965Vladikavkaz

Guram Georgiyevich DRYAYEV

1959Beslan

Vitaliy Soltanovich DZARAKHOKHOV

1960V. Biragzang

German Vladimirovich GIGOLAYEV

1966Vladikavkaz

Uruzmag Nikolayevich GIGOLAYEV

1960Vladikavkaz

Lyudmila Sandroyevna KACHMAZOVA

1954Alagir

Pavel Mikhaylovich KUCHIYEV

1952V. Biragzang

Valeriy Gavrilovich KULUMBEKOV

1963Ir

Viktor Valentinovich MINAYEV

1959Vladikavkaz

Andrey Albertovich NOSOV

1964Vladikavkaz

Anatoliy Zaurbekovich PLIYEV

1962Alagir

Sergey Nikolayevich ROYENKO

1961Vladikavkaz

Spartak Evdokimovich SUANOV

1957Biragzang

Artur Yasonovich BAGIYEV

1965Vladikavkaz

16/01/2009

10/02/2009

Shamil Aleksandrovich FARNIYEV

1948Vladikavkaz

Elbrus Vladimirovich GAGLOYEV

1966Vladikavkaz

Saveliy Kharitonovich KELEKHSAYEV

1963Vladikavkaz

Chermen Taymurazovich KUPEYEV

1960Vladikavkaz

Natalya Georgiyevna KUSHNAREVA

1957Vladikavkaz

Tamerlan Lavrentyevich ABAYEV

1971Vladikavkaz

25/03/2009

06/04/2009

Feliks Chermenovich KOBLOV

1966Vladikavkaz

Dzhangir Khaliddinovich SAFIBEKOV

1969Vladikavkaz

Soslan Yevgenyevich ZHITNIK

1969Vladikavkaz

Vladimir Sergeyevich GERGAULOV

1960Vladikavkaz

25/03/2009

06/04/2009

Albert Gersanovich KHABALOV

1959Alagir

Alan Ruslanovich LOLAYEV

1967Tsrau

Igor Umarovich TEDEYEV

1970Alagir

Stanislav Alikhanovich GAKHOV

1962Nogir

30/01/2009

10/03/2009

Igor Vladimirovich KULUMBEGOV

1967Kambileyevskoye

David Sulikoyevich MARGIYEV

1971Zavodskoy

Akhsarbek Zaurbekovich OSMANOV

1960Mayramadag

Valiko Grafovich PARASTAYEV

1952Alagir

Aleksandr Nikolayevich VYAZNIKOV

1968Alagir

Aslanbek Kirillovich BADTIYEV

1965Mikhaylovskoye

23/12/2008

03/03/2009

Robert Andreyevich BIGULOV

1967Vladikavkaz

29/01/2009

17/03/2009

Artur Aslanbekovich DZANAGOV

1964Vladikavkaz

29/01/2009

17/03/2009

Aslan Mukhtarovich DZESTELOV

1963Vladikavkaz

29/01/2009

17/03/2009

Soslan Borisovich KHODOV

1968Vladikavkaz

19/02/2009

02/03/2009

Oleg Viktorovich KIRGUYEV

1964Vladikavkaz

16/02/2009

Ten days later

Vikentiy Nestorovich KOZAYEV

1956Mikhaylovskoye

25/03/2009

03/04/2009

Oleg Nikolayevich ZANGIYEV

1964Alagir

26/03/2009

06/04/2009