FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 24850/06 Sergey Vladimirovich SHAMIN against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , President, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos , Ksenija Turković , judges,

and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov v. Russia ( no. 2 ) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ),

Having regard to the declarations 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 these declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants are all Russian nationals. Their details appear in the appendix.

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

The applicants have obtained court decisions awarding them monetary sums to be paid by the State, as detailed below. Those decisions in the applicants ’ favour became final and enforceable but the State delayed their enforcement.

All applications were lodged with the Court before 15 January 2009, the date of the delivery of the pilot judgment ( Burdov ( no. 2 ) , cited above).

1 . Application no. 24850/06 was lodged with the Court by Sergey Vladimirovich Shamin .

On 23 March 200 5 the Uglegorodsk Town Court of the Sakhalin Region awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The decision became final on 2 Augus t 2005 and was enforced on 25 January 2007.

2 . Application no. 33032/06 was lodged with the Court by Vitaliy Sergeyevich Dyagilev .

On 20 May 2004 the Novotroitsk Town Court of the Orenburg Region awarded RUB 150,000 to the applicant for compensation of non-pecuniary damage. The decision became final on 1 July 2004 and was enforced on 27 March 2006.

3 . Application no. 10037/07 was lodged with the Court by Vladimir Nikolayevich Zezyulin .

On 20 September 2005 the applicant was awarded by the Leninskiy District Court of Omsk RUB 149,150. 20 as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The decision be came final on 2 November 2005 and was enforced on 28 February 2007.

4 . Application no. 43384/07 was lodged with the Court by Pavel Anatolyevich Kravtsov .

On 11 Octo ber 2006 the Sovetskiy District Court of Orel awarded the applicant RUB 3,000 in non-pecuniary damage. The decision became final on 29 November 2006 and was enforced on 13 July 2009 .

On 29 November 2006 the Orel Region Court awarded t he applicant RUB 2,000 in legal expenses. The decision became final on the same date and was enforced on 13 July 2009 .

5 . Application no. 24241/08 was lodged with the Court by Sergey Nikolayevich Gulyayev, Sergey Yevgenyevich Demin, Vladimir Gennadyevich Cherepanov and Ilya Nikolayevich Khmelevskoy.

Mr Gulyayev was awarded compensation in the amount of RUB 139,331.66 by the decision of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 10 of the Central District of Kursk dated 24 November 2003. The decision became final on 5 December 2003 and remains unenforced.

Mr Demin was awarded compensation in the amount of RUB 96,872.84 (together with subsequent indexation, RUB 188,351.94) by the decision of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 1 of the Central District of Kursk dated 10 December 2003. The decision became final on 22 December 2003 and remains unenforced.

Mr Cherepanov was awarded compensation in the amount of RUB 98,515.56 (together with subsequent indexation, RUB 214,248.69) by the decision of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 7 of the Central District of Kursk dated 24 November 2003. The decision became final on 8 December 2003 and remains unenforced.

Mr Khmelevskoy was awarded compensation in the amount of RUB 74,620.87 (together with subsequent indexation, RUB 140,168.51) by the decision of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 7 of the Central District of Kursk dated 23 December 2003. The decision became final on 3 January 2004 and remains unenforced.

6 . Application no . 35833/08 was lodged with the Court b y Aleksey Yevgenyevich Khotin.

On 8 October 2007 t he applicant was awarded compensation for damage caused by unlawful actions of State authorities in the amount of RUB 5,000 by the Volzhskiy Town Court of the Volgograd Region . The decision became final on 13 December 2007 and was enforced on 21 June 2011 .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

2. The applicants also made accessory complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

THE LAW

A . J oinder of applications

Given that the applications at hand concern similar complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single decision.

B . N on-enforcement complaints

In line with the Burdov ( no. 2 ) pilot judgment, cited above, the Government informed the Court that the other domestic cour t s judgments in the applicants ’ favour had been enforced (save for payments to Mr Gulyayev, Mr Demin, Mr Cherepanov and M r Khmelevskoy) and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issue of delayed enforcement. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums listed in the appendix in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and the outstanding judgment debts to Mr Gulyayev, Mr Demin, Mr Cherepanov and M r Khmelevskoy . The remainder of the declarations read as follows:

“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] 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 [sums tabulated below], which [are] to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. [They] 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 [these sums] within the said three ‑ month period, the Government undertake 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.

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

The applicants either did not provide any comments on the unilateral declarations, or disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. The applicants, who still have not received the payments under the domestic judgments, challenged the modalities of the execution of the judgments at the domestic level and, in particular, alleged that the Government had not proposed indexation of awarded amounts in comparison with the inflation rate in the country. The Court recalls 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. 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 application . ”

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.”

The Court recalls that in its pilot judgment cited above (point 7 of the operative part) it ordered the Russian Federation to:

“... grant [adequate and sufficient] redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a judgment debt in their favour who [had] lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications [had been] communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court.”

In the same judgment the Court also held that (point 8 of the operative part):

“... pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court [would] adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, the proceedings in all cases concerning solely the non-enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the State authorities, without prejudice to the Court ’ s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention.”

Having examined the terms of the Government ’ s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Burdov ( no. 2 ) , cited above, §§ 127 and 145 and point 7 of the operative part).

The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour is explicitly acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the domestic judgment debts (save for the payment s to Mr Gulyayev, Mr Demin, Mr Cherepanov and M r Khmelevskoy ) were paid to the applicants and that the compensations offered by the Government for non- pecuniary damage are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia , of the specific delays in each particular case (see Burdov ( no. 2 ) , cited above, §§ 99 and 154). As regards the outstanding amount s to be paid to Mr Gulyayev, Mr Demin, Mr Cherepanov and M r Khmelevskoy , the Court takes into account the willingness of the State to pay these sums together with the compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of their delayed payment.

Insofar as several applicants contest the execution modalities, the Court reiterates that such grievances must be first and foremost submitted to domestic courts, which are better placed than the Court to ascertain the compliance with the Russian law in this area, including the specific index ‑ linking requirements provided therein (see Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), no s . 14330/07 et al ., 5 February 2009).

The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications, nor is it required by respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list.

As regards the question of implementation of the Government ’ s undertakings , the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this ma tter in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention (see the Committee ’ s decisions of 14-15 September 2009 (CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065) and Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)158 concerning the implementation of the Burdov ( no. 2 ) judgment , cited above ). 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 the list of cases (see E.G. v. Poland and 175 other Bug River applications (dec.), no. 50425/99 , § 29 , ECHR 2008 (extracts) ).

C . A lleged violation of other convention rights

As for the applicants ’ accessory complaints referring to various Articles of the Convention, 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 th e s e part s of the applications 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;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration s under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the part of the applications concerning the applicants ’ complaint about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 February 2015 .

André Wampach Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Delay in enforcement

Unilateral remedial offer

24850/06

24/04/2006

Sergey Vladimirovich SHAMIN

24/12/1956

Ilskiy

1 year 5 months and 23 days

725 euros ( EUR )

33032/06

10/05/2005

Vitaliy Sergeyevich DYAGILEV

13/10/1974

Novotroitsk

Sergey Ivanovich KIRYUKHIN

1 year 8 months and 27 days

EUR 850

10037/07

31/01/2007

Vladimir Nikolayevich ZEZYULIN

22/04/1965

Svetlyy

1 year 3 months and 28 days

EUR 650

43384/07

09/08/2007

Pavel Anatolyevich KRAVTSOV

06/07/1969

Livny

2 years 7 months and 14 days

EUR 1,401

24241/08

04/05/2008

Sergey Nikolayevich GULYAYEV

07/09/1968

Kursk

Izmir Kerimkhanovich SARUKHANO V

Not enforced

EUR 5,63 9 (non ‑ pecuniary damage) ; plus RUB 1 39 , 33 1. 66 (pecuniary damage)

Sergey Yevgenyevich DEMIN

09/05/1955

Kursk

EUR 5,633 (non ‑ pecuniary damage) ; plus RUB 188,351.94 (pecuniary damage)

Vladimir Gennadyevich CHEREPANOV

03/10/1968

Kursk

EUR 5,6 55 (non ‑ pecuniary damage) ; plus RUB 214 , 248 . 69 (pecuniary damage)

Ilya Nikolayevich KHMELEVSKOY

29/07/1954

Kursk

EUR 5,6 15 (non ‑ pecuniary damage) ; plus RUB 1 40 , 168 . 51 (pecuniary damage)

35833/08

10/06/2008

Aleksey Yevgenyevich KHOTIN

27/01/1984

Volzhskiy

3 years 6 month and 8 days

EUR 1,974