Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2355/06 Vladimir Terentyevich KARPENKO against Russia and 24 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 17 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , Ksenija Turković , judges,

and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the declaration s submitted by the respondent Government on various dates 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 who se names and dates of birth are tabulated below . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights .

The facts of the case s , 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, property and monetary issues. In all of the above cases the domestic courts took lengthy periods of time to examine the applicants ’ claims ranging between t wo and ten years.

The applicants complained , among other matters, 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 excessive length of the proceedings .

In case no. 44713/08, o n 3 August 2011 the applicant’s widower, Kulichikhin Vladimir Vasilyevich, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 21 January 2011. He expressed his intention to continue the proceedings in her stead.

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.

A. Complaints about the length of proceedings

On various dates the Government submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving this issue. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article 6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums tabulated below.

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 the examination of their applications on the merits . Some applicants failed to reply.

The Court reiterates that under Article 37 of the Convention it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified in paragraph 1 (a), (b), or (c) of that Article.

It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wish es the examination of a case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration s in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

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 ’s 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 requires the Court to continue the examination of the present applications it does not see any compelling reason of public order to warrant examination of the present applications on the merits. Firstly, the Court has on numerous occasions determined issues analogous to those arising in the instant cases and ascertained in great detail the States ’ obligations under the Convention in that respect (see, among many others, KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 131 and 160, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Kormacheva v. Russia , no. 53084/99, §§ 57 and 64, 29 January 2004). Secondly, on 4 May 2010 the Russian authorities introduced a new domestic remedy against unreasonable length of court proceedings, which was deemed prima facie effective by the Court and now requires to be exhausted (see Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia ( dec. ), nos. 26716/09 et al., 23 September 2010). As a consequence, an examination on the merits of the present cases would not bring any new element in this regard.

Accordingly, in so far as the complaint s about the length of proceedings are concerned, th at part of applications should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention .

B. Complaint s of 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 remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings.

The Government did not specify their position in relation to these complaints.

The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduced by the 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 (n o. 2 ) ( no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ) .

On 23 September 2010 the Court decided that all new cases introduced after the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment, cited above, 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 , cited above, § 32 ). 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 in the present case ( see, Zemlyanskiy and Others v. Russia ( dec . ) , nos. 18969/06 et al., 13 March 201 2, and Pobudilina and Others v. Russia ( dec. ) , nos. 7142/05 et al., 29 March 2011 ) .

C. Other complaints

Some applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols . Having regard to 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 th is part of the applications is 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;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration s under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike a part of the application s 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 of lack of an effective remedy;

Declares the remainder of the application s inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2015 .

André Wampach Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No

Application no

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Compensation

offered (EUR)

2355/06

06/12/2005

Vladimir Terentyevich KARPENKO

10/02/1938

Korolev

3,000

2488/06

07/12/2005

Sergey Nikolayevich GEYGER

13/01/1961

Mezhdurechensk

2,000

2908/06

26/12/2005

Anna Siviryanovna BAYEVA

13/08/1938

Yekaterinburg

Sergey Viktorovich BAYEV

04/04/1961

Yekaterinburg

Tatyana Viktorovna SIDOROVA

26/03/1965

Yekaterinburg

2,800 to each

8162/06

26/01/2006

Vitaliy Sergeyevich ALEKSANDROV

29/08/1940

Zhukovka

2,700

9836/06

27/02/2006

Andrey Ivanovich KOLESNIKOV

03/04/1967

Seversk

Nikolay Veniaminovich KANDYBA

2,200

10564/06

21/02/2006

Vladimir Filippovich STAROKOZHEV

10/07/1941

Moscow

4,000

11275/06

12/03/2006

Yelena Konstantinovna RUMYANTSEVA

18/08/1941

St Petersburg

3,700

14136/06

25/01/2006

Sergey Leonardovich YATSYNO

20/02/1955

Novocherkassk

Aleksandr Sergeyevich YATSYNO

31/12/1986

Novocherkassk

Maksim Sergeyevich YATSYNO

03/12/1981

Novocherkassk

Aleksandra Nikolayevna YATSYNO

27/03/1959

Novocherkassk

2,000 to each

18356/06

10/04/2006

Galina Nikolayevna GANINA

23/11/1946

Nizhniy Novgorod

Igor Aleksandrovich KOCHIN

4,000

29588/06

06/06/2006

Sergey Mikhaylovich KISLOV

01/12/1952

Tver

3,600

32326/06

17/06/2006

Vladimir Aleksandrovich BOLSHAKOV

20/04/1964

Novocherkassk

1,500

32464/06

12/07/2006

Gennadiy KADYROV

12/05/1957

Deputatskiy

2,300

34333/06

21/07/2006

Viktor Gerasimovich KULIKOV

22/05/1936

Voronezh

3,500

34459/06

14/08/2006

Tatyana Yuryevna GAVRILYUK

24/06/1962

St Petersburg

1,800

37236/06

04/07/2006

Nikolay Petrovich SEMENOV

22/09/1952

Nizhniy Novgorod

Yuriy Fedorovich RYCHKOV

3,000

40611/06

25/09/2006

Yelena Nikiforovna TSVETKOVA

30/05/1948

St Petersburg

2,200

45755/06

29/09/2006

Vladimir Vasilyevich DANCHENKO

14/04/1963

St Petersburg

3,500

46730/06

29/09/2006

Nina Pavlovna PLOTNIKOVA

15/03/1939

Birsk

Nurmukhamet Mukhametdinovich GILYAZETDINOV

3,200

49366/06

17/10/2006

Raisa Filippovna TYULINA

29/06/1924

St Petersburg

3,000

50105/06

19/02/2003

Tatyana Gennadyevna BRAGINA

02/08/1941

Yekaterinburg

Anna Valentinovna DEMENEVA

3,000

1652/07

14/11/2006

Varvara Ivanovna YAKOVLEVA

05/12/1926

Kolpino

1,200

2603/07

10/11/2006

Svetlana Shaydiyarovna DIVAYEVA

16/01/1956

Tuymazy

1,500

7344/07

07/02/2007

Aleksandr Andreyevich LOPATIN

21/01/1952

Tula

2,000

18312/07

12/04/2007

Aleksey Yevgenyevich KARLOV

12/10/1955

St Petersburg

4,200

44713/08

23/06/2008

Natalya Ivanovna SHERENESHEVA

31/07/1943

Moscow

2,500

Menu

KARPENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

KARPENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA