FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2259/04 Pavel Ivanovich LEVASHKO against Russia and 15 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 6 December 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Elisabeth Steiner , Julia Laffranque , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s ,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant s are sixteen Russian nationa ls whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix to the present decision . The Russian Government (“the Government ” ) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

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

The domestic courts found in the applicants ’ favour against various State bodies, and their judgments became binding and enforceable.

In the cases of Mr Kartavtsev (application no. 23897/08), Ms Orlova (application no. 41921/08) and Mr Visitskiy (application no. 32215/08), after the judgments entered into force the State applied to the courts that had ruled on the cases seeking amendment of the enforcement method due to the State ’ s inability to enforce the judgments as they stood for various reasons. The proceedings for examination of such applications lasted from four to seven months.

The judgments in the applicants ’ favour were subsequently enforced.

The names of the courts that issued those judgments, the dates when they became final and the dates of their enforcement are listed in the appendix.

Mr Litvinov (application no. 58519/08) and Ms Litvinova (application no. 34646/09), who considered that the Pension Fund was not applying the regional coefficient of 1.7 to their pensions in accordance with the earlier judgments to this effect, brought a complaint to court. By a judgment of 9 February 2010 the Neryungri Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) dismissed their action, deciding that the applicants ’ pension was de facto paid with account of the sought regional co-efficient. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) on 12 April 2010.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant s complained of delayed enforcement of the judgments.

2. Some applicants complained that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgments by domestic means proved ineffective.

3. Some applicants also made accessory complaints under assorted Articles of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

2. The applicants complained of delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Insofar as relevant, these provisions read as follows:

Article 6

“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 Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible as the period of the delay in the enforcement of the judgments in the present cases had been reasonable, the judgments had been enforced in full and the way they had been enforced had complied with the requirements of the law.

The applicants maintained their complaints. Some applicants expanded their applications by complaining about non-enforcement of newer judgments. Several applicants contested the fact of the full enforcement of the judgments or argued that the way of their enforcement had been unlawful.

With regard to the complaints concerning newer judgments, the Court notes that these complaints were made after the communication of the applications to the Government and hence fall outside the scope of the present case.

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, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia , no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).

The Court observes that in fourteen of the present applications the period of enforcement of the judgments lasted up to one year. Having regard to its well-established case-law (see, among others, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009), the Court considers that these periods complied with the requirements of the Convention.

In three of the present applications where the State applied for amendment of the enforcement method, the period of enforcement lasted over one year but no longer than one year and seven months. The Court accepts that by applying for such amendment the State acted in good faith with a view to enable enforcement of the judgments and considers that in these circumstances the delays in the enforcement were also not in breach of the requirements of the Convention.

In so far as Mr Litvinov and Ms Litvinova contest the fact of the enforcement of their judgments in the part concerning calculation of their pension, the Court observes that the subsequent court decisions established that the applicants ’ pension was de facto calculated in accordance with the previous judicial rulings on this subject and that the applicants suffered no disadvantage. The Court sees no reason to depart from the findings of the domestic courts in this case.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

3. Some of the applicants complained that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgments by domestic means had proved ineffective. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in the terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found above that the applicants ’ complaint about the delayed enforcement is manifestly ill-founded, Article 13 has no application in the present case.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

4. Some of the applicants also 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 this part of the applications is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the application s inadmissible.

André Wampach Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar President

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Judgment by

Final on

Enforced on

2259/04

08/12/2003

Pavel Ivanovich LEVASHKO

22/08/1950

Zelenograd Town Court , Rostov Region

09/07/2003

11/12/2003

3579/04

30/12/2003

Aleksandr F edorovich MISHURA

07/09/1945

Kirovskiy District Court, Astrakhan

19/09/2000

12/10/2000

23510/04

05/06/2004

Nikolay Innokentyevich SEDALISHCHEV

02/10/1950

Yakutsk Town Court , Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya)

11/08/2004

03/09/2004

26372/04

21/05/2004

Nikolay Stepanovich POLEZHAYEV

22/05/1949

Kirovskiy District Court, Chelyabinsk

16/07/2001

June 2002

34264/05

16/08/2005

Vyacheslav Vitalyevich KAMENSKIY

22/11/1963

Lyublinskiy District Court, Moscow

11/04/2005

05/10/2005

21/02/2006

29/11/2006

Raduzhnyy Town Court , Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region

05/04/2006

09/11/2006

25714/06

06/05/2006

Anatoliy Afanasyevich LOSITSKIY

28/06/1946

Obninsk Town Court , Kaluga Region

08/12/2005

06/06/2006

45071/06

02/08/2006

Gennadiy Vasilyevich KOVALEV

01/01/1965

Tsentralnyy District Court, Kaliningrad

13/07/2005

12/07/2005

8199/07

27/12/2006

Aleksey Valeryevich CHECHIKOV

18/05/1977

Leninskiy District Court, Smolensk

27/06/2006

02/04/2007

23897/08

04/05/2008

Aleksandr Nikolayevich KARTAVTSEV

24/04/1951

Novovoronezh Town Court , Voronezh Region

04/09/2007

26/11/2008

32215/08

19/05/2008

Nikolay Pavlovich VISITSKIY

29/07/1946

Novovoronezh Town Court , Voronezh Region

16/10/2007

28/10/2008

41667/08

06/06/2008

Aleksandr Nikolayevich FILIMONOV

05/02/1955

Motovilikhinskiy District Court, Perm

13/12/2007

22/08/2008

41921/08

08/08/2008

Tatyana Ivanovna ORLOVA

17/07/1950

Novovoronezh Town Court , Voronezh Region

03/08/2007

23/10/2008

42134/08

21/07/2008

Aleksandr Petrovich DOROZHKIN

08/04/1954

Proletarskiy District Court, Saransk

10/01/2008

27/11/2008

45789/08

17/07/2008

Vasiliy Mikhaylovich DIKOV

05/03/1953

Proletarskiy District Court, Saransk

10/01/2008

27/11/2008

58519/08

27/10/2008

Valeriy Vladimirovich LITVINOV

02/10/1942

Neryungri Town Court , Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya)

30/07/2003

March 2004

16/08/2004

July 2004

34646/09

27/10/2008

Lyudmila Aleksandrovna LITVINOVA

16/12/1949

Neryungri Town Court , Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya)

30/07/2003

March 2004

16/08/2004

July 2004