LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
SHILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 36600/11, 37373/11, 37868/11, 38380/11, 38878/11, 39443/11, 39753/11, 43361/11, 74900/11, 3259/12, 2... • ECHR ID: 001-173868
Document date: April 25, 2017
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
SHILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 36600/11, 37373/11, 37868/11, 38380/11, 38878/11, 39443/11, 39753/11, 43361/11, 74900/11, 3259/12, 2... • ECHR ID: 001-173868
Document date: April 25, 2017
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 36600/11 Lidiya Konstantinovna SHILOVA against Russia and 14 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.
In the wake of the pilot judgment, on various dates in late 2014 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. 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
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.
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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 May 2017 .
Fatoş 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
36600/11
16/05/2011
Lidiya Konstantinovna SHILOVA
12/02/1963
St Petersburg
28/10/2003
10/11/2003
24/12/2013
10 years
1 months and 14 days
16/12/2015
6,500
25/01/2016
37373/11
15/06/2011
Sergey Vyacheslavovich RYZHANOV
07/10/1962
Moscow
29/05/2008
31/07/2008
13/03/2013
4 years
7 months and 13 days
08/12/2015
4,520
12/02/2016
37868/11
16/05/2011
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich YANCHARIN
28/05/1976
Moscow
19/04/2007
05/05/2007
19/06/2013
6years
1 month and 14 days
08/12/2015
6,000
19/01/2016
38380/11
08/06/2011
Oleg Nikolayevich OSTROVERKHIY
13/05/1959
Moscow
21/09/2009
09/10/2009
03/04/2013
3 years
5 months and 25 days
08/12/2015
3,410
04/02/2016
38878/11
03/06/2011
Dmitriy Anatolyevich MOZHAYEV
24/06/1961
Moscow
25/01/2010
16/02/2010
21/08/2013
3 years
6 months and 5 days
08/12/2015
3,440
20/01/2016
39443/11
25/05/2011
Anatoliy Ivanovich KUKO
01/09/1959
Moscow
18/11/2002
29/11/2002
20/12/2012
10 years and 21 days
24/07/2015
6,500
31/08/2015
39753/11
26/04/2011
Oleg Viktorovich SARNIKOV
05/04/1975
Moscow
31/10/2005
18/11/2005
26/03/2013
7 years
4 months and 8 days
08/12/2015
6,500
05/02/2016
43361/11
06/07/2011
Lyudmila Vitalyevna YELFIMOVA
08/08/1963
Lipetsk
Alina Anatolyevna CHERNYSHOVA [1] 27/06/1988
Lipetsk
Yevgeniy Anatolyevich YELFIMOV
01/10/1982
Lipetsk
02/12/2009
25/12/2009
03/02/2015
5 years
1 month and
9 days
11/07/2016
5,010
(jointly)
29/09/2016
74900/11
15/10/2011
Aleksandr Sergeyevich RASSOSHINSKIY
04/08/1978
Astrakhan
Margarita Vladimirovna GORDEYEVA
10/09/2009
12/11/2009
2011
07/09/2016
980
24/11/2016
3259/12
20/12/2011
Aleksey Nikolayevich ORLOV
12/04/1986
Arkhangelsk
Igor Yuryevich TELYATYEV
07/10/2009
21/10/2009
15/12/2015
6 years
1 month and 24 days
29/09/2016
6,030
09/12/2016
21923/12
22/03/2012
Aleksey Romanovich MAYOROV
27/01/1963
Nizhniy Novgorod
25/06/2009
19/08/2009
29/06/2012
2 years
10 months and 10 days
08/12/2015
2,800
20/01/2016
23439/12
29/03/2012
Dzhavad Bakhshali Ogly BAKHSHALIYEV
26/01/1964
Bogorodskoye
Rakhib Dzhavad Ogly BAKHSHALIYEV
01/02/1993
Bogorodskoye
Ramil Dzhavad Ogly BAKHSHALIYEV
13/06/1997
Bogorodskoye
Sevil Ibadulla Kyzy BAKHSHALIYEVA
08/02/1969
Bogorodskoye
28/05/2009
09/06/2009
16/05/2014
4 years
11 months and 7 days
24/07/2015
4,840
(jointly)
03/09/2015
30848/12
03/05/2012
Nina Alekseyevna MALINOVSKAYA
15/03/1952
Sortavala
28/10/2009
10/11/2009
30/01/2014
4 years
2 months and 20 days
18/01/2016
2,500
15/03/2016
40625/12
04/06/2012
Olga Nikolayevna KHLOPOTOVA
26/09/1938
Petrozavodsk
10/08/2010
21/09/2010
19/03/2014
3 years
5 months and 26 days
24/07/2015
2,200
31/08/2015
59737/13
05/09/2013
Viktor Nikolayevich CHEMADUROV
24/02/1948
Bryansk
Viktor Viktorovich SHAROVARIN
01/03/2012
15/05/2012
17/03/2016
3 years
10 months and 2 days
09/12/2016
3,766
17/01/2017
[1] . In the course of the proceedings before the Court the last name of this applicant changed from Yelfimova to Chenyshova .
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
