THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 8496/05 Larisa Vladimirovna SMOLNIKOVA and O thers against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 23 February 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom , President, Dmitry Dedov , Branko Lubarda , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the declaration s submitted by the respondent Government on different dates (see the Appendix) requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ replies to th ose declaration s ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the A ppendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyuskin , Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

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

The applicants were parties to civil proceedings that took place in courts of ordinary jurisdiction in various regions of Russia. These disputes concerned various civil matters such as labour , housing, registration of property and consumers ’ rights among others . In all of the above cases the domestic courts took lengthy periods of time to examine the applicants ’ claims ranging between two and ten years .

The applicants complained, in particular, about the length of the proceedings in their cases . In certain cases they also complained of lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of undue length of the proceedings.

The applications were communicated to the Government .

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. Complaints about the length of proceedings

The applicants complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings . They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

By letters of different dates (see the Appendix) t he Government informed the Co urt that they proposed to make unilateral declaration s with a view to resolving the issue s raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration s provided as follows:

“ ... the Government of the Russian Federation acknowledge that the length of proceedings in the applicants ’ case was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement .

...

The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case 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 sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

Some applicants disagreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declarations on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Some of them insisted on examination of their applications on the merits. Some applicants did not reply.

The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide 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 paragraph 1 of that Article.

It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.

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 applications”.

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.”

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law.

The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicants ’ cases is acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensations offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia , of the specific delays in the proceedings in each particular case. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications .

As to whether the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto require s the Court to continue the ex amination of the applications , it notes that in a number of analogous cases the Court found that it was not required to continue the examination the applications in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine (see Liberman and Others v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 8065/08, 27 January 2015; Goloshchapov and Others v. Russia ( dec. ) , no. 4627/06 , 27 January 2015 ; and Pobudilina and Others v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 7142/05, 29 March 2011 ) . The Court does not see any reason to depart from that approach in the present cases.

In view of the above, in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned, it is appropriate to strike that part of the applications out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention .

C. Complaint s about lack of an effective domestic remedy

Some applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings.

The Government did not specify their position in relation to this complaint.

The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduce d by federal laws â„– 68-FZ and â„– 69-FZ on 4 May 2010 in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009).

On 23 September 2010 the Court decided that all new cases introduced after the Burdov pilot judgment and falling within the scope of the new domestic remedy had to be submitted in the first place to the national courts (see Fakhretdinov and Others ( dec. ) no. 26716/09 , § 32 , 23 September 2010 ). The Court also stated that its position may be subject to review in the future, depending in particular on the domestic courts ’ capacity to establish consistent practice under the new law in line with the Convention requirements (ibid. , § 33).

Finally, the Court notes that all the applicants were in principle enabled to claim compensation under the transitional provisions of the new law and that they will in any event receive pecuniary compensation in respect of their grievances in accordance with the Government ’ s declarations examined above.

Having regard to these special circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to continue a separate examination of the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in the present cases (see, Zemlyanskiy and Others v. Russia ( dec. ), nos. 18969/06 et al., 13 March 2012, and Pobudilina and Others , cited above ).

D. Other complaints

Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles of the Convention. 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 accordan ce with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration s ;

Decides to strike the applications in respect of the length of proceedings out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ;

Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention of lack of an effective remedy;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 March 2016 .

Marialena Tsirli Helena Jäderblom              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No .

Application No .

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Date of declaration and

compensation offered

8496/05

22/01/2005

Larisa Vladimirovna SMOLNIKOVA

25/01/1962

St Petersburg

Pavel Yefimovich SMOLNIKOV

11/05/1962

St Petersburg

Gleb Pavlovich SMOLNIKOV

12/11/1983

St Petersburg

06/04/ 2015

EUR 2,100 to all three applicants

20595/05

08/05/2005

Tatyana Vasilyevna SHATALOVA

23/06/1960

Chernyatino

06/04/2015

EUR 2, 300

42458/05

08/11/2005

Lyudmila Mikhaylovna SMIRNOVA

31/10/1944

St Petersburg

06/04/2015

EUR 2,500

507/06

14/11/2005

Olga Ivanovna BEGCHENKOVA

26/01/1955

Kudryashovsk

06/04/2015

EUR 2,5 00

14562/07

07/02/2007

Aleksandr Fedorovich MARTYNOV

11/08/1962

Belgorod

13/01 /2015

EUR 1,1 00

21607/07

18/04/2007

Yuriy Masumovich NEVRETDINOV

04/06/1947

Yalta

Aleksandra Petrovna PISAREVA

12/10/1922

Yalta

Stanislav Masumovich NEVRETDINOV

13 /0 1 /2015

EUR 1, 300 to each applicant

38190/07

10/07/2007

Valentina Grigoryevna MAKARENKO

25/02/1948

Vorkuta

13/01 /2015

EUR 2,5 00

44374/07

29/08/2007

Lyubov Lvovna TSAREVA

06/03/1941

Yaroslavl

13/01/2015

EUR 2,0 00

51194/07

01/11/2007

Lyudmila Valentinovna VERDIREVSKAYA

01/02/1951

Norilsk

Dmitriy Alekseyevich BOYEV

13/01/2015

EUR 1,1 00

54242/07

20/11/2007

Aleksandr Borisovich KUZNETSOV

01/03/1952

Ussuriysk

13/01/2015

EUR 3, 500