FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 5257/06 Vladimir Vasilyevich KODENTSOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 6 May 2014 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 pilot-judgment in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009),

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates shown in the Annex,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations submitted by the applicant s in reply,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are three Russian nationals, whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are shown in the Appendix.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr 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 t wo first applicants are victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Under domestic law they were entitled to social security benefits. Because the authorities had failed to pay the benefits in full or in time, the applicants sought relief through the domestic courts. The courts found for the applicants, the judgments became binding, but their full enforcement was delayed. Details of the judgments are shown in the A ppendix .

The third applicant was awarded his legal costs to be paid by the Department of Culture for Volzhskiy. Details of the judgment are shown in the A ppendix .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant s complained that by reason of the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour , their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated .

One of the applicants also complain ed that the State had failed in its obligation to increase monthly compensation payments in line with inflation. On account of this failure , the applicant had to seek an adjustment of his compensation through the domestic courts.

THE LAW

The Court will examine th e complaint s regarding the dela yed enforcement of the judgments and the State ’ s failure to adjust the compensation payments in line with inflation under Article 6 § 1 of the Conventio n and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 , the relevant parts of which read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The Court reiterates at the outset that as from 4 May 2009, the date on which the pilot judgment in Burdov (no. 2) (cited above) became final , it adjourned the adversarial proceedings on all applications lodged with the Court in which t he applicants complained of non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by State authorities pending the adoption of domestic remedial measures. However, such adjournment is without prejudice to the Court ’ s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case ( ibid., § 146).

The Court also notes that the present cases were communicated to the respondent State on 7 September 201 2 wit h a view to their settlement in line with the above- mentioned pilot judgment. The Government argued in response, however, that the complaints were inadmissible because the domestic judgments had been enf orced within a reasonable time.

The applicants maintained their complaints.

The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, it will first look at the time it took the authorities to execute the judgment , the complex ity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, and the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia , no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).

In the present application s , the period of enforcement w as less than a year. Having regard to this fact and the Court ’ s case-law in similar cases, and taking into account the other circumstances of the present case s , the Court considers that th is period did not fall short of the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009).

In relation to the complaint regarding the State ’ s failure to adjust compensation payments in line with inflation, t he Court observes that the domestic judgments awarding compensation did not indicate any specific method for adjustment but rather placed a general obligation on the domestic authorities to increase monthly payments in line with inflation. In the event of a dispute arising out of the scope of that obligation or the manner of its discharge , it was open to the applicant to seek a judicial determination of the matter. However, such proceedings would result in a separate award which would obviously fall outside the scope of the present case (see Aleksentseva and Others v. Russia , nos. 75025/01 et al. , § 23, 17 January 2008 ) .

It follows that the co mplaints regarding the dela yed enforcement of the judgments and the State ’ s failure to adjust the compensation payments in line with inflation are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

In application no. 9303/07 t he applicant also made other complaints , relying on various 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 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;

Declares the application s inadmissible.

André Wampach Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska              Deputy Registrar President

Appe ndix

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Judgment of

Binding on

Enforced on

Period

5257/06

23/11/2005

Vladimir Vasilyevich KODENTSOV

11/12/1949

Belaya Kalitva

03/04/2006 Belokalitvinskiy Town Court

14/04/2006

18/12/2006

9 months

01/11/2006 Belokalitvinskiy Town Court

25/12/2006

03/12/2007

11 months

22644/06

23/03/2006

Vasiliy Ivanovich TSUKANOV

04/01/1950

Gorodovikovsk

26/01/2007 Gorodovikovskiy District Court of the Kalmyk Republic

15/03/2007

unspecified date in September 2007

5 months

03/04/2007 Gorodovikovskiy District Court of the Kalmyk Republic

05/06/2008

unspecified date in December 2008

7 months

9303/07

12/01/2007

Lidiya Vasilyevna TIMOSHINA

14/07/1939

Volgograd

08/02/2005 Justice of the Peace of the 64 th Court Circuit of Volzhskiy

31/05/2005

13/10/2005

5 months