Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 9042/07 Irina Vladimirovna KLIMOVA and Others against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2003,

Having regar d to the comments submitted by the parties ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Russian national s whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below . They were represen ted before the Court by Mr D.Y. Kozyrev , a lawyer practising in the Pskov Region.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented first by M s V. Milinchuk , then by Mr A. Savenkov and, finally, 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 applicants were teachers at municipal school no. 10 ( лицей № 10 ) in Velikiye Luki , Pskov Region. By virtue of a provision in the national law they were entitled to a monthly allowance for purchase of books and magazines ( компенсация за книгоиздательскую продукцию и периодические издания ) which had not been paid to them for a few years.

The applicants applied to a court seeking recovery of the unpaid allowance.

On 28 March 2003 the Justice of Peace of Court Circuit no. 34 of Velikiye Luki in the Pskov Region granted the applicants ’ claim for the unpaid allowance and held that the Education Directorate of the Velikiye Luki Town Council should reimburse them various amounts.

On 3 June 2003 the Velikiye Luki Town Court of the Pskov Region upheld that judgment on appeal.

Following an unspecified period during which the judgment remained unenforced, the applicants allegedly applied to a court for index-linking of the awards due to the inflation but had their claims rejected. They did not however submit any documents to support this claim, nor did they indicate the date of the judicial decision or the court adopting it.

The Government submitted copies of payroll records according to which the awards had been paid to the applicants in April and May 2004.

On 10 December 2007 the Government informed the Registry that Ms G. Tolstobrova and Mr B. Gromakov had died on unspecified dates. Hereafter the correspondence has been forwarded to their representative. To date, the Court has not received any information from the applicants ’ heirs wishing to pursue the proceedings in their stead.

On 29 May 2008 the Court received the letters from twenty-eight applicants stating that they no longer had interest in pursuing the proceedings due to the timely enforcement of the judgment in their favour. The applicants who sent the letters were Ms V. Petrova , Ms N. Bolozdynya , Mr V. Titov , Ms G. Ilyina , Mr V. Gorelyshayev , Ms T. Grabazdina , Ms L. Lobanova , Ms M. Romanenkova , Ms A. Zaytseva , Ms N. Shvedova , Ms V. Abakanova , Ms N. Rybina , Ms O. Davydik , Ms O. Fedoseyeva , Mr D. Belyukov , Ms S. Zholudeva , Ms M. Nikitina , Ms Y. Logvinova , Ms M. Verbina , Ms I. Klyuchnikova , Ms S. Bogdanova , Mr N. Revidovich , Ms T. Rassolova , Ms G. Baskakova , Ms G. Bogdanova , Mr V. Nilov , Ms Y. Yermolayeva and Ms T. Shafranova .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain ed under Article 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 of delays in the enforcement of the judgment of 28 March 2003, as upheld on 3 June 2003 .

They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the courts had refused them compensation for the depreciation of the awards due to them but not paid in good time.

THE LAW

I. PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE DECEASED APPLICANTS AND THE APPLICANTS WHO LOST INTEREST

In view of the circumstances detailed above and in respect of the applicants who had been declared deceased or expressed loss of interest, the Court considers that they or their heirs may be regarded as n o longer wishing to pursue the application , within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , it finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case in respect of these applicants out of the list.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT IN RESPECT OF OTHER APPLICANTS

The other applicants maintained their complaint that the continuing failure to enforce the judgment of 28 March 2003 in their favour had breached their rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The relevant provisions 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 ...”

“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.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

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 recalls that, according to the documents presented by the Government and not contested by the applicants, the judgment of 28 March 2003, as upheld on 3 June 2003, was enforced in April and May 2004, that is within ten and eleven months. The Court considers the period of the enforcement to be reasonable and well within the standards set in its established case-law (see Presnyakov v. Russia ( dec .), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005). Therefore, this complaint should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

III. OTHER COMPAINTS

The applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the courts had refused them compensation for the depreciation of the awards due to them but not paid in good time.

However, there is nothing in the materials of the case to suggest that the applicants sought such compensation at the domestic level. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Accordingly, it should also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application in respect of thirty applicants o ut of its list of cases;

Declares the application inadmissible in respect of the remaining applicants .

André Wampach Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar President

LIST OF APPLICANTS

App.no

Last Name

First N ame

Birth date

1 .

KLIMOVA

Irina Vladimirovna

10/10/1957

2 .

ABAKANOVA

Valentina Vasilyevna

26/03/1950

3 .

BASKAKOVA

Galina Ivanovna

16/10/1937

4 .

BELOUSOVA

Yelena Yevgenyevna

21/04/1958

5 .

BELYUKOV

Dmitriy Anatolyevich

-

6 .

BOGDANOVA

Svetlana Alekseyevna

25/04/1965

7 .

BOGDANOVA

Galina Ivanovna

1955

8 .

BOLOZDYNYA

Nina Borisovna

15/04/1949

9 .

DAVYDIK

Olga Aleksandrovna

17/11/1958

10 .

DZHALAGANIYA

Svetlana Yuryevna

12/03/1970

11 .

FEDOSEYEVA

Olga Vasilyevna

18/04/1959

12 .

GAVRILOVA

Dina Ivanovna

10/09/1970

13 .

GONCHAROVA

Irina Viktorovna

12/03/1970

14 .

GORELYSHEV

Vladimir Ivanovich

17/09/1956

15 .

GORELYSHEVA

Alla Alekseyevna

19/09/1965

16 .

GRABAZDINA

Tatyana Ivanovna

02/11/1966

17 .

GRISHINA

Lidiya Petrovna

14/03/1954

18 .

GROMAKOV

Boris Fedorovich

17/01/1940

19 .

GROMAKOVA

Rimma Fedorovna

20/01/1944

20 .

ILYINA

Galina Nikolayevna

20/01/1970

21 .

KAZAKOVA

Olga Vladimirovna

10/03/1974

22 .

KLYUCHNIKOVA

Irina Pavlovna

28/11/1964

23 .

KREMKOV

Igor Olegovich

29/12/1961

24 .

KREMKOVA

Yelena Vitalyevna

08/02/1964

25 .

KUZMINA

Irina Mikhaylovna

23/02/1965

26 .

LOBANOVA

Larisa Petrovna

13/05/1966

27 .

LOGVINOVA

Yelena Rufovna

30/10/1961

28 .

LYUBAVINA

Natalya Mikhaylovna

25/05/1970

29 .

MARTISOVA

Tatyana Vasilyevna

29/02/1956

30 .

MURZICH

Anna Ivanovna

26/01/1960

31 .

NIKISHINA

Marina Valentinovna

14/12/1963

32 .

NILOV

Valeriy Vasilyevich

18/05/1961

33 .

OSIPOVA

Svetlana Yuryevna

15/06/1968

34 .

OSPELNIKOVA

Nina Pavlovna

13/01/1941

35 .

PANFILOVA

Olga Romanovna

03/08/1973

36 .

PETROVA

Vera Vladimirovna

28/12/1959

37 .

PETROVA

Valentina Ivanovna

08/07/1948

38 .

RASSOLOVA

Tatyana Borisovna

18/02/1963

39 .

REPYAKH

Inna Yuryevna

07/10/1968

40 .

REVIDOVICH

Nikolay Andreyevich

11/02/1954

41 .

ROMANENKOVA

Marina Yuryevna

15/02/1970

42 .

RYBINA

Nadezhda Borisovna

01/10/1958

43 .

SALTYKOVA

Natalya Vladimirovna

13/09/1971

44 .

SHAFRANOVA

Tatyana Dmitriyevna

03/03/1953

45 .

SHULAYEV

Aleksandr Anatolyevich

17/11/1956

46 .

SHVEDOVA

Nadezhda Sergeyevna

12/03/1938

47 .

SOLDATENKO

Larisa Viktorovna

13/06/1970

48 .

SOLODKOVA

Natalya Nikolayevna

21/03/1971

49 .

STEPANOVA

Natalya Nikolayevna

20/06/1976

50 .

TITOV

Vyacheslav Nikolayevich

10/01/1958

51 .

TOLSTOBROVA

Galina Nikolayevna

29/11/1938

52 .

TSATSKO

Natalya Ivanovna

23/03/1961

53 .

VERBINA

Maria Pavlovna

25/11/1935

54 .

VYRODOVA

Lyubov Pavlovna

04/10/1934

55 .

YAKOVLEVA

Natalya Semenovna

01/04/1969

56 .

YERMOLAYEVA

Yelena Mikhaylovna

03/11/1960

57 .

YEROSHENKOVA

Marina Nikolayevna

20/12/1949

58 .

ZAYTSEVA

Alla Leopoldovna

05/04/1949

59 .

ZHOLUDEVA

Svetlana Alekseyevna

20/06/1973

Menu

KLIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

KLIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI