Search
document

VETROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 10067/04, 8241/05, 39912/05, 1244/06, 6587/06, 13537/06, 35571/06, 40917/06, 49281/06, 13869/07, 176... • ECHR ID: 001-173839

Document date: April 25, 2017

Inbound citations: 3
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 7

VETROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 10067/04, 8241/05, 39912/05, 1244/06, 6587/06, 13537/06, 35571/06, 40917/06, 49281/06, 13869/07, 176... • ECHR ID: 001-173839

Document date: April 25, 2017

Cited paragraphs only

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 10067/04 Viktor Mikhailovich VETROV against Russia and 12 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 April 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda , President, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Georgios A. Serghides , judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

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

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia (nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, § 218, 1 July 2014),

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the Government and the applicants ’ acceptance of their terms,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the appendix.

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 Mr A. Fedorov , Head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation to the Court.

The applicants complained, among other matters, about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour imposing various obligations in kind on domestic authorities and the lack of the effective remedies in respect of the non-enforcement complaint. Dates of the judgments, their entry into force and their full enforcement are set out in the appendix.

On 27 March 2011 Ms Kostromitina , an applicant in case no. 17650/07, died. On 2 March 2012 her daughter, Ms Giyesova , also an applicant in the case, expressed her willing to participate in the proceedings before the Court in her mother ’ s stead.

On various dates the applications were communicated to the Government (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§ 230-31, and point 13 of the operative part).

On the dates specified in the appendix the Government submitted unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications.

In their declarations they acknowledged, in each case, the lengthy enforcement of the judgment in the applicant ’ s favour . The unilateral declarations further contained, in each case, the dates of the judgment at issue, its entry into force and its full enforcement, as well as an overall enforcement delay.

The authorities stated their readiness to pay to the applicants the sums listed in the appendix as just satisfaction. The payments were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. In case no. 39912/05 the Government specified separately an amount in euros they offered in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and an amount in Russian roubles as a reimbursement for postage (see the appendix). They would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay the sums within the said period, the Government undertook 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. The payments would constitute the final resolution of the cases.

In their letters received on the dates indicated in the appendix, the applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declarations.

THE LAW

A. Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision.

B. Locus standi as regards application no. 17650/07

The Court takes note of Ms Kostromitina ’ s death and of the wish of Ms Giyesova to pursue the proceedings.

The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; and Horváthová v. Slovakia , no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005). Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). The Government did not contend that Ms Giyesova had no standing to pursue the case. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicant ’ s daughter has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application.

C. Complaints about the delayed enforcement

The Court attaches particular weight to the applicants ’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government. It finds that such agreement shall be considered as a friendly settlement between the parties (see Cēsnieks v. Latvia ( dec. ), no. 9278/06, § 34, 6 March 2012, and Bakal and Others v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 8243/08, 5 June 2012).

The Court therefore takes formal note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Court further considers that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

In any event the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the execution of the terms of the friendly settlement as set out in the present decision (Article 39 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 43 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Further, 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 its list of cases.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

The Court considers that the amounts proposed by the Government should be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment.

D. Other complaints

Some of the applicants raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. However, 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 the applications in this part 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,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides that in respect of application no. 17650/07, Ms Yelena Yevgenyevna Giyesova has standing to continue the proceedings in Ms Lyubov Fedorovna Kostromitina ’ s stead;

Decides , having regard to the terms of the Government ’ s declarations, and the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein, and the applicants ’ acceptance of the terms of the declarations, to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in respect of the complaints about the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgments;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 May 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Representative

Date of judgment

Final on

Enforcement date

Enforcement delay as specified in the unilateral declaration

Date of unilateral declaration

Remedial offer

(euros)

Date of applicant ’ s letter in reply

10067/04

11/02/2004

Viktor Mikhailovich VETROV

11/08/1954

Barnaul

15/12/2000

22/12/2004

4 years 7 days

09/06/2016

3,940

02/08/2016

8241/05

19/01/2005

Vera Petrovna NAVESOVA

01/03/1952

Ulan-Ude

Olga Petrovna SAFONOVA

10/12/1998

25/05/1999

31/01/2002

10/02/2002

22/11/2010

11 years 5 months and 28 days

29/09/2016

6,500

14/11/2016

39912/05

25/09/2005

Vladimir Nikolayevich MASIN

10/06/1958

Petrozavodsk

23/03/2005

19/05/2005

29/12/2010

5 years 7 months and 10 days

19/10/2012

5,500

and 218.1 Russian roubles

26/03/2015

1244/06

24/11/2005

Sergey Vitalyevich MELNIKOV

04/07/1954

Moscow

Leonid Anatolyevich CHERNYSHOV

17/11/2005

06/12/2005

08/05/2007

1 year 5 months and 2 days

29/09/2016

1,390

03/01/2017

6587/06

01/02/2006

Gennadiy Nikandrovich KUNITSKIY

26/05/1955

Balashov

16/12/2004

28/12/2004

29/05/2006

1 year 5 months and 1 day

09/06/2016

1,390

08/09/2016

13537/06

08/02/2006

Aleksandr Grigoryevich LABYTSIN

02/12/1952

Golovenki

Ivan Rimmovich MEDVEDEV

24/04/2003

12/05/2003

06/02/2008

4 years 8 months and 25 days

09/06/2016

4,650

04/08/2016

35571/06

15/07/2006

Leonid Yakovlevich ZHELEZNYAKOV

09/10/1940

Tuapse

Larisa Mikhaylovna ZHELEZNYAKOVA

17/09/1945

Tuapse

13/02/2001

26/02/2001

18/01/2007

5 years 10 months and 23 days

28/07/2016

3,710 (jointly)

21/09/2016

40917/06

07/08/2006

Sergey Yuryevich ABRAMOV

05/12/1957

Kostroma

28/01/2002

12/02/2002

29/04/2008

6 years 2 months and 17 days

15/06/2016

6,092

28/07/2016

49281/06

23/11/2006

Renat Rustamovich AKHMETZYANOV

17/07/1976

Moscow

06/04/2006

07/06/2006

11/06/2008

2 years and 4 days

29/09/2016

1,970

14/12/2016

13869/07

19/03/2007

Liya Faritovna ZIYAZOVA

02/01/1957

Yekaterinburg

Elza Fanisovna MEZENTSEVA

09/08/1985

Yekaterinburg

Liana Fanisovna YAKIMOVA

29/04/1978

Yekaterinburg

Yevgeniy Nikolayevich YAKIMOV

11/06/1972

Yekaterinburg

Elvira Aleksandrovna GERBEL

07/07/2006

05/09/2006

09/06/2008

1 year 9 months and 4 days

29/09/2016

1,729 (jointly)

09/12/2016

17650/07

19/03/2007

Lyubov Fedorovna KOSTROMITINA

22/09/1959

(Deceased on 27/03/2011)

Yekaterinburg

Yevgeniy Nikolayevich KOSTROMITIN

24/01/1960

Yekaterinburg

Yelena Yevgenyevna GIYESOVA

11/09/1982

Yekaterinburg

(Acting also as an heir of KOSTROMITINA L.F.)

Sergey Yevgenyevich KOSTROMITIN

02/11/1985

Yekaterinburg

Elvira Aleksandrovna GERBEL

07/07/2006

05/09/2006

Summer 2008

2 years

30/09/2016

1,800 (jointly)

09/12/2016

23145/07

13/03/2007

Nikolay Nikolayevich UGLYANITSA

25/03/1949

St Petersburg

Rustem Abdullovich ZARBEYEV

17/04/2006

01/06/2006

16/10/2009

3 years 4 months and 15 days

28/07/2016

3,310

26/08/2016

36291/07

25/06/2007

Igor Leonidovich MULTAN

17/12/1964

St Petersburg

09/03/2006

22/08/2006

16/12/2008

2 years 3 months and 24 days

29/09/2016

2,270

10/01/2017

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant