Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

This version was rectified on 21 March 2011 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 7120/03 Lidiya Sergeyevna LUNINA and O thers against Russia ( see annex for other applications)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Sverre Erik Jebens , President, Anatoly Kovler , George Nicolaou , judges, and André Wampach , D eputy 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 (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ‑ ...),

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ replies to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals . Their names and date s of birth are tabulated below.

Ms A. Issayeva, Ms M. Khaba rova, Ms T. Yakovleva and Mr K. Mokhnatkin died after lodging their applications under Article 34 of the Convention. Their successors Mr I. Zhukov, Ms N. Khabarova, Ms N. Sokolova and Ms N. Makhnatkina, respectively, indicated their interest in pursuing the proceedings.

The Russian Government (“the Gove rnment”) 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 applicants sued the State authorities in domestic courts for payment of various monetary sums due under the Russian law. The courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay various amounts in the form of lump sums and/or of periodic payments to be upgraded in line with the inflation in the country. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement .

In particular, on 27 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded Ms Grigorenko ’ s mother, who had died in September 2000, a certain amount for indexation of her pension (application no. 14218/06). The Government stated that Ms Grigorenko had obtained her inheritance certificate on 23 November 2005 and submitted it together with the writ of execution shortly thereafter. The judgment wa s enforced on 20 December 2005.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour and, in certain cases, of assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the judicial or enforcement proceedings.

TH E LAW

I. LOCUS STANDI

The Court takes note of certain applicants ’ death and of the interest of their successors in pursuing the proceedings.

The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX). Furthermore, in some cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006).

The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the cases referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights the applicants sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). The Government did not contend that any of the successors mentioned above had no standing to pursue the cases. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicants ’ successors have a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications.

II. COMPLAINTS OF NON-ENFORCEMENT

Regarding Ms Grigorenko ’ s complaint of delayed enforcement of the judgment of 27 November 2000, the Court takes cognisance of the Government ’ s submissions and is satisfied that it was the applicant ’ s responsibility to inform the State of her status as heir to the deceased claimant with an award against the State. The Court considers that in this situation the State cannot bear responsibility for the delay in the payment of the award (see Ziabreva v. Russia , no. 23567/06, § 21 , 18 December 2008 ) . Accordingly, this complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

As to the other applications, f ollowing the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above the Government informed the Court of the payment of the domestic court awards in the applicants ’ favour and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged in various but very similar terms that judgments in the applicants ’ favour were not enforced in a timely manner ( e.g. “the excessive duration of the enforcement”, “the delay in the enforcement” or “the lengthy enforcement”). They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums tabulated below. 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.”

Some applicants agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declarations. Others failed to reply. A majority disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by th e Government were insufficient.

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 under (a), (b), or (c) 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 ( Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , cited above) 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 :

“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 judgments in the applicants ’ favour is acknowledged by the Government either explicitly or in substance. The Court also notes that the compensations offered 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).

The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications.

Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour are concerned, 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 matter 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)1 58 concerning the implementation of the Burdov (no. 2) judgment). 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 (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008 ‑ ... (extracts)) .

III. OTHER COMPLAINTS

Some applicants 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 the application s in this part 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 complaint of non-enforcement made by Ms L. Grigorenko inadmissible;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration s ;

Decides to strike the application s in respect of non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour out of its list of cases;

Declares the remainder of the application s inadmissible.

André Wampach Sverre Erik Jebens Deputy Registrar President

ANNEX

No

Application No

Last name

Forename

Born

Compensation offered (euros)

7120/03

LUNINA

BARKALOVA

CHERNYSHOVA

DAMARAD

DAVYDOVA

GLADILOVA

ISSAYEVA

KALAYEVA

KHABAROVA

KHVOSTOVA

MALKHOVA

MAMONOVA

PLOTNIKOVA

SAMSONOVA

SELIVANOVA

SHUMILINA

SVIRIDOV

YERINA

ZABALUYEVA

LIDIYA SERGEYEVNA

LIDIYA MITROFANOVNA

OLGA MIKHAYLOVNA

BORIS ALEKSANDROVICH

ANASTASIYA IVANOVNA

GALINA SERGEYEVNA

ALEKSANDRA PAVLOVNA

RAISA ILYINICHNA

MARIYA ILYINICHNA

ANNA SEMENOVNA

ZOYA NIKOLAYEVNA

TAMARA ANDREYEVNA

LIDIYA VYACHESLAVOVNA

VALENTINA GRIGORYEVNA

MARIYA VASILYEVNA

TATYANA VASILYEVNA

GENNADIY MIKHAYLOVICH

YELENA PETROVNA

NATALYA SERGEYEVNA

1958

1940

1952

1957

1940

1944

1929

1949

1933

1940

1938

1944

1960

1943

1939

1945

1932

1955

1953

1,800

2,100

2,000

1,500

2,150

850

1900

1,700

2,300

2,150

1,800

2,300

2,000

2,100

1,980

1,900

1,600

34436/04

MOROZ

YAKOVLEVA

SELEZNEV

RAIDA VIKTOROVNA

TATYANA PETROVNA

YURIY IVANOVICH

1936

1934

1940

2,500

2,600

2,500

39945/04

KRAVCHENKO

ALEKSANDR ANTONOVICH

1941 [1]

3,000

2107/05

KURZHALOV

OLEG PETROVICH

1954

610

3453/05

TURMANOV

TARIYEL NIKOLAYEVICH

1949 [2]

2,456

4249/05

MAKSIM

ANDREY ANDREYEVICH

1981

1,100

4523/05

PETUKHOV

ANATOLIY ALEKSANDROVICH

1949

2,905

4943/05

SANIN

VIKTOR ALEKSANDROVICH

1956

1,584

12254/05

KOSYGIN

VYACHESLAV FEDOROVICH

1948

785

13094/05

DUBRAVIN

NIKOLAY GRIGORYEVICH

1949

2,904

18611/05

GERASIMENKO

GALINA VASILYEVNA

1945

1,760

22256/05

NOSKOV

ROMAN VIKTOROVICH

1961

2,670

22668/05

MILKEVICH

YURIY STANISLAVOVICH

1957

1,640

31957/05

MARTIROSYAN

EDVART NAPOLEONOVICH

1956

766

33595/05

KUNDYUSOV

ANDREY IVANOVICH

1962

966

36458/05

PUSTOVAROV

ANDREY VLADIMIROVICH

1972

2,970

38083/05

ANDREYTSEVA

CHERNENKO

GALINA ALEKSANDROVNA

GALINA GRIGORYEVNA

1955

1,087

42513/05

VOBLIKOV

VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH

1948

620

2060/06

FEDOREY

ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH

1958

2,430

4138/06

USHAKOVA

NADEZHDA NIKOLAYEVNA

1957

3,925

4158/06

SALMENKOVA

GALINA RUFOVNA

1960

1,572

14218/06

GUBINA

NOVIKOVA

ZHIGULINA

KARPOVA

GRIGORENKO

TAMARA AFANASYEVNA

VALENTINA VASILYEVNA

PELAGEYA ALEKSEYEVNA

LIDIYA IVANOVNA

LIDIYA NIKOLAYEVNA

1934

1931

1935

1941

1934

1,500

Declared inadmissible

15400/06

GREKOVA

OLGA PAVLOVNA

1968

2,609

18363/06

SAZONOV

SERGEY ANATOLYEVICH

1958

3,955

28225/06

GADZHIYEV

OMAR DZHABRAILOVICH

1961

2,000

31401/06

YERMOLAYEV

VLADIMIR SEMENOVICH

1953

990

42611/06

ZAO LIZINGOVAYA KOMPANIYA ‘ GEOLIZING ’

1,628

44973/06

SEMITKOVSKIY

LAPIK

SOKOLENKO

KRAMARENKO

SHCHEGELSKIY

ALCHINSKIY

VITALIY GRIGORYEVICH

ALEKSEY LEONIDOVICH

IGOR VLADIMIROVICH

DMITRIY ANATOLYEVICH

NIKOLAY NIKOLAYEVICH

NIKOLAY ANATOLYEVICH

1957

1953

1964

1967

1962

1960

1,553

2,096

1,778

1,743

1,447

1,592

45414/06

TSAPENKO

GEORGIY GEORGIYEVICH

1950

650

2258/07

ANTOSHKIV

NADEZHDA ALEKSANDROVNA

1937

835

5669/07

KONSTANTINOV

MIKHAIL VASILYEVICH

1956

5,000

5672/07

LOSEVA

LYUBOV YAKOVLEVNA

1950

700

11344/07

YEVSENOCHKIN

VLADIMIR PAVLOVICH

1946

804

14538/07

MAKHNATKINA

NINA YEVGENYEVNA

1935

1,610

19514/07

PRIKHODCHENKO

NIKOLAY GRIGORYEVICH

1951

857

19651/07

GORSKAYA

NATALIYA MIKHAYLOVNA

1946

927

25181/07

BAZAYEVA

BARSEGYANTS

DOROKHOV

GAZZAYEV

KIRICHENKO

KOBLOV

KOLIYEV

KORAYEV

KRAVCHENKO

KULUMBEKOV

PAVLIOSHVILI

POSYAKIN

SAFIBEKOV

TIGIYEV

TOMAYEV

ZHITNIK

SVETLANA FEDOROVNA

AVETIS SARKISOVICH

SERGEY NIKOLAYEVICH

VIKTOR KAZBEKOVICH

IGOR STANISLAVOVICH

FELIKS CHERMENOVICH

ALAN KHASANBEKOVICH

ANATOLIY PAVLOVICH

SERGEY NIKOLAYEVICH

VALERIY GAVRILOVICH

GELA SHAVLOVICH

DMITRIY VALENTINOVICH

ZANGIR KHALIDDIN-OGLY

RUSLAN ANDREYEVICH

OLEG IRAKLIYEVICH

SOSLAN YEVGENYEVICH

1957

1959

1956

1970

1973

1966

1967

1955

1965

1963

1967

1955

1969

1961

1953

1969

1,460

1,370

1,600

1,750

1,450

1,600

1,320

1,780

1,350

1,650

1,350

3,000

1,670

1,470

1,550

1,600

30260/07

BUGLEYEV

OLEG ALEKSEYEVICH

1952

2,200

35007/07

TATARSHAO

AMIR KHADZHIBIYEVICH

1952

1,394

36894/07

RESIN

ANDREY IGOREVICH

1974

2,467

37004/07

BELYANIN

ANATOLIY VASILYEVICH

1948

820

44866/07

BULATOV

NIKOLAY ILYICH

1939

835

56480/07

YERIN

SERGEY VASILYEVICH

1963

900

10318/08

ROZHKOV

VLADIMIR VASILYEVICH

1955

3,600

12376/08

KALOYEV

TAYMURAZ MAISEYEVICH

1981

2,800

16247/08

LISITSKAYA

ANNA MIKHAYLOVNA

1931

5,000

20802/08

LEDENTSOV

GENNADIY YEVGENYEVICH

1939

500

20806/08

SHAYEKHOV

YANAGAYEV

ISKANDER MINNEKHANOVICH

ALEKSEY DMITRIYEVICH

1953

1987

1,150

22165/08

KOLKHITOVA

ANDZELINA KAZBEKOVNA

1969

3,400

30626/08

KOCHKINA

IDEYA IVANOVNA

1936

1,020

30632/08

SOKOL

BORIS MIRONOVICH

1944

870

32219/08

KOPCHENKO

ZINAIDA IVANOVNA

1943

860

32221/08

MITROFANOVA

NADEZHDA IVANOVNA

1950

880

32225/08

KOCHKIN

VLADIMIR FEDOROVICH

1936

1,050

40332/08

PETRAKI

VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH

1982

3,000

59373/08

SHERIYEV

KHABAS MUKHAMEDOVICH

1975

3,900

8421/09

SHAMANAYEVA

TATYANA YEVGENYEVNA

1950

3,010

[1] Rectified on 21 March 2011 : the text was “1954”

[2] Rectified on 21 March 2011 : the text was “1954”

Menu

LUNINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LUNINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI