CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 février 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s3B3FE78A { height:19.9pt } .s6108529E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s100B96D5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt } .s7EFFCD42 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1FD28DE { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s5BB3C487 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt } .s4EA2AC9F { padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt } .sDE7EE5C3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:10pt; font-size:10pt } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 14330/07 and 15 other applications by Aleksandr Vasiliyevich BELKIN and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the applications listed in the Annex, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are 16 Russian nationals, whose names and dates of birth are shown in the Annex. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr A. Savenkov, First Deputy Minister of Justice, and Mr   G.   Matyushkin, 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 are victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster who live in the Rostov Region of Russia. Under domestic law they were entitled to social benefits. Because the authorities had failed to pay the benefits in full or in time, the applicants sought relief in courts of the Rostov Region. The courts held for the applicants, the judgments became binding, but their full enforcement was delayed. Details of the judgments are shown in the Annex. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments. 2.     The applicants complained that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgments by domestic means proved ineffective. 3.     The applicants also made accessory complaints under assorted Articles of the Convention. THE LAW 1.     The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Insofar as relevant, these Articles 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 Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the loss of victim status, the full enforcement of the judgments, and the reasonableness of the periods of enforcement. The applicants maintained their complaints. Several applicants expanded their applications by complaining about non-enforcement of newer judgments. Several applicants contested the fact of the full enforcement of the judgments. With regard to the applicants’ 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 considers it possible to leave the questions of domestic remedies and victim status open, because the applications are in any event inadmissible as follows. 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). In the present applications, the periods of enforcement were up to one year. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that these periods complied with the requirements of the Convention. Insofar as several applicants contest the fact of the full enforcement of their judgments, the Court lends credence to the Government’s statement because the applicants have not submitted this argument to domestic courts (see Sirotin v. Russia (dec.), no.   38712/03, 14   September 2006). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.   2.     The applicants complained that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgments by domestic means 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 Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible because the applicants did have at their disposal several effective remedies. The applicants maintained their complaint. 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 and 4 of the Convention.   3.     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 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 applications inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President         ANNEX     No. Applicant Born Court Judgment of Binding on Enforced on Period 14330/07 Belkin Aleksandr Vasiliyevich 1955 Taganrog Town Court 26/01/06 07/02/06 30/10/06 0y 8m 31415/07 Dronov Vasiliy Viktorovich 1950 Shakhty Town Court 21/11/06 02/12/06 17/08/07 0y 8m       Shakhty Town Court 28/03/07 07/04/07 03/12/07 0y 7m 54316/07 Gladkov Anatoliy Andreevich 1950 Shakhty Town Court 27/11/06 26/02/07 03/12/07 0y 9m 55311/07 Karyev Gennadiy Aleksandrovich 1966 Shakhty Town Court 21/11/06 04/12/06 03/12/07 0y 11m 33058/07 Kashchenko Sergey Anatoliyevich 1966 Shakhty Town Court 25/05/06 05/06/06 18/12/06 0y 6m 44876/07 Khokhlov Aleksandr Ivanovich 1950 Belokalitvinskiy Town Court 20/07/06 11/09/06 01/08/07 0y 10m 55325/07 Kirillov Vladimir Petrovich 1946 Shakhty Town Court 21/12/06 10/01/07 03/12/07 0y 10m 33408/07 Kleymenkin Aleksandr Aleksandrovich unspecified Shakhty Town Court 23/11/06 05/01/07 29/11/07 0y 10m       Shakhty Town Court 30/01/07 13/02/07 17/08/07 0y 6m 30200/07 Kurinnyy Nikolay Mikhaylovich 1939 Zernograd District Court 20/07/06 06/09/06 21/08/07 0y 11m 28433/07 Rodionov Aleksandr Ivanovich 1956 Konstantinovskiy District Court 15/05/06 26/05/06 31/10/06 0y 5m 31699/07 Sasykin Aleksandr Nikolayevich unspecified Shakhty Town Court 30/11/06 12/12/06 17/08/07 0y 8m 50203/07 Serobaba Georgiy Petrovich 1967 Shakhty Town Court 22/03/07 03/04/07 17/12/07 0y 8m 44870/07 Troshchev Vladimir Ivanovich 1954 Belokalitvinskiy Town Court 20/07/06 04/09/06 17/08/07 0y 11m 39665/07 Tsibulin Viktor Nikolayevich 1948 Shakhty Town Court 28/11/06 12/12/06 17/08/07 0y 8m       Shakhty Town Court 30/11/06 12/12/06 03/12/07 0y 11m       Shakhty Town Court 21/12/06 12/01/07 03/12/07 0y 10m 26235/05 Yegorov Mikhail Nikolayevich 1950 Shakhty Town Court 13/03/96 unspecified unspecified date in 1996   < 1y 33850/04 Zaratuyev Aleksey Stefanovich 1952 Shakhty Town Court 17/10/06 31/10/06 17/08/07 0y 9m       Shakhty Town Court 28/02/07 13/03/07 03/12/07 0y 8m