CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s2318DFBC { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD34 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt } .s3B53EBCB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:6pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3BE4E78A { height:19.2pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s24C65525 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIRST SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 10 March 2010 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court   Application no. 6394/05 by Viktor Mikhaylovich USKOV and 17 other applications (nos. 7144/05, 9464/05, 10542/05, 30006/06, 39119/06, 50742/06, 2229/07, 5951/07, 31624/07, 31698/07, 51340/07, 51342/07, 9463/08, 13132/08, 16251/08, 16849/08 and 39590/08) against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12   November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, 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 100 Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. 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. Under domestic law the applicants were entitled to social benefits. Because the State failed to pay these benefits in full or in time, the applicants sought relief in the courts. The courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay arrears and to upgrade periodic payments. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement. COMPLAINT The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments and assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the proceedings. THE LAW In July 2009 the Government submitted to the Court unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issue raised by the applications. The Government requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declarations read as follows: “[T]he Russian authorities acknowledge the excessive duration of the enforcement of [the applicants' judgments]. The authorities are ready to pay [the applicants] ex gratia [the sums tabulated below]. 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 objected to these declarations in principle and requested the Court to continue the adversarial proceedings. Some applicants agreed with the sums offered but insisted that their applications may be struck out only after the payment. They also noted that the Government had not acknowledged a breach of the Convention. Some applicants disagreed with the sums offered, but accepted the declarations for want of better options. Some applicants asked the Court to stop the proceedings having lost belief in their favourable outcome. Some applicants accepted the declarations entirely. 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 recently 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). Having regard to the acknowledgement contained in the declarations together with the amounts of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. Moreover, the Court is 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, the applications should be struck out of the list. As regards the question of implementation of the Government's undertakings raised by certain applicants, 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 concerning the implementation of the Burdov   (no.   2) judgment, CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065). 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)). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declarations; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President ANNEX     Application no. Applicant Born Sum 6394/05 Uskov Viktor Mikhaylovich 1939 2 050 € 7144/05 Paramonov Viktor Vasilyevich 1941 3 350 € 9464/05 Shniolis Stanislavas Alfonso 1942 2 050 € 10542/06 Kirillov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich 1958 2 050 € 30006/06 Gorokhov Dmitriy Ivanovich 1952 2 050 €   Rusyayev Rostislav Vladimirovich 1961 2 050 € 39119/06 Stankevich Yuriy Aleksandrovich 1955 1 400 € 50742/06 Sergeyenko Georgiy Andreyevich 1937 2 050 € 2229/07 Ignatyev Yuriy Ivanovich 1951 2 700 € 5951/07 Khaliullin Rakip Gabdulkhayevich 1949 2 700 € 31624/07 Nasilnikov Ivan Ivanovich 1950 2 700 € 31698/07 Neznanov Anatoliy Aleksandrovich 1957 2 050 € 51340/07 Minasyan Samvel Sarkisovich 1951 2 050 €   Pavlov Nikolay Georgiyevich 1946 2 050 €   Sazykin Aleksandr Stepanovich 1952 2 050 €   Denisenko Ivan Pavlovich 1947 2 050 €   Pavlov Aleksandr Aleksandrovich 1955 2 050 €   Dydar Valeriy Vladimirovich 1967 2 050 €   Kruglov Vladimir Mikhaylovich 1945 2 050 €   Snezhko Valentin Dmitriyevich 1943 2 050 €   Mayorov Nikolay Ivanovich 1943 2 050 €   Tretyakov Igor Aleksandrovich 1954 2 050 €   Makagonov Grigoriy Nikolayevich 1949 2 050 €   Reznikov Viktor Stepanovich 1955 2 050 €   Merzlikin Yuriy Petrovich 1947 2 050 €   Vanzha Grigoriy Nikolayevich 1953 2 050 €   Terekhov Anatoliy Nikolayevich 1949 2 050 €   Kuznetsov Pyotr Ivanovich 1951 2 050 €   Martynov Vladimir Iliych 1954 2 050 €   Nechayev Vasiliy Markovich 1950 2 050 €   Borzov Vladimir Mikhaylovich 1951 2 050 €   Nazarenko Grigoriy Romanovich 1947 2 050 €   Yakovenko Nikolay Fyodorovich 1947 2 050 €   Drozdov Viktor Alekseyevich 1947 2 050 €   Seletskiy Vladimir Nikolayevich 1950 2 050 €   Koda Anatoliy Vasilyevich 1954 2 050 €   Achagov Aleksandr Anatolyevich 1959 2 050 €   Borovikov Vasiliy Vasiliyevich 1947 2 050 €   Kozub Vladimir Andreyevich 1945 2 050 €   Ilyenko Vladimir Nikolayevich 1943 2 050 €   Khodakovskiy Grigoriy Iosifovich 1950 2 050 €   Frolov Gennadiy Alekseyevich 1945 2 050 € 51342/07 Belov Vladimir Vladimirovich 1946 1 400 €   Berezhnoy Yuriy Mikaylovich 1951 1 400 €   Beloverbenko Anatoliy Valentinovich 1954 1 400 €   Burtan Yuriy Anatolyevich 1961 1 400 €   Bykovskiy Pyotr Pavlovich 1944 1 400 €   Varlamov Fyodor Alekseyevich 1965 1 400 €   Vikhtevskiy Anatoliy Nikolayevich 1952 1 400 €   Volchenko Vladimir Petrovich 1951 1 400 €   Gavrilov Yevgeniy Vladimirovich 1951 1 400 €   Gonchar Nikolay Pavlovich [1] 1950 1 400 €   Gres Dmitriy Alekseyevich 1952 1 400 €   Davydenko Yuriy Sergeyevich 1966 1 400 €   Denisenko Aleksey Grigoryevich 1952 1 400 €   Dobrovolskiy Vladimir Alekseyevich 1955 1 400 €   Yevdokimenko Nikolay Mikaylovich 1946 1 400 €   Ivanitskiy Vasiliy Romanovich 1954 1 400 €   Ignatenko Anatoliy Nikolayevich 1953 1 400 €   Ishekov Anatoliy Alekseyevich 1948 1 400 €   Kazakov Leonid Yegorovich 1945 1 400 €   Kovyazov Andrey Georgiyevich 1965 1 400 €   Kozhurin Yevgeniy Vladimirovich 1958 1 400 €   Kornienko Leonid Grigoryevich 1956 1 400 €   Koroshchenko Aleksandr Vladimirovich 1960 1 400 €   Koshel Dmitriy Ivanovich 1949 1 400 €   Kushnarenko Pavel Vasilyevich 1952 1 400 €   Lavrov Aleksandr Valentinovich 1953 1 400 €   Lebed Georgiy Kupriyanovich 1952 1 400 €   Litvinenko Pyotr Nikolayevich 1947 1 400 €   Luyenko Nikolay Ivanovich 1949 1 400 €   Makarenko Nikolay Grigoryevich 1951 1 400 €   Marukhno Nikolay Aleksandrovich 1957 1 400 €   Migel Yuriy Vasilyevich 1966 1 400 €   Mosin Aleksandr Vasilyevich 1965 1 400 €   Nehrist Vladimir Grigoryevich 1947 1 400 €   Novakov Viktor Georgiyevich 1956 1 400 €   Pozhidayev Vladimir Nikolayevich 1950 1 400 €   Orda Aleksandr Ivanovich 1952 1 400 €   Reznik Vasiliy Stepanovich 1952 1 400 €   Semko Aleksandr Grigoryevich 1964 1 400 €   Singayevskiy Ivan Stanislavovich 1951 1 400 €   Sirota Aleksandr Alekseyevich 1951 1 400 €   Sokolov Vitaliy Leonidovich 1955 1 400 €   Stratiy Viktor Mikhaylovich 1953 1 400 €   Stupak Nikolay Ivanovich 1950 1 400 €   Sukmanov Vladimir Ivanovich 1952 1 400 €   Tkachenko Nikolay Ivanovich 1943 1 400 €   Troyanov Georgiy Vasilyevich 1950 1 400 €   Fomenko Vladimir Sergeyevich 1951 1 400 €   Cherednichenko Ivan Ivanovich 1954 1 400 €   Chernomordov Valeriy Ivanovich 1950 1 400 €   Shabelnikov Aleksandr Ivanovich 1951 1 400 €   Shayturov Mikhail Pavlovich 1955 1 400 €   Shapovalov Vladimir Yakovlevich 1952 1 400 €   Shulga Aleksandr Petrovich 1965 1 400 € 9463/08 Gribanenkov Sergey Vasilyevich 1949 2 050 € 13132/08 Alekseyeva Valentina Nikolayevna 1948 2 050 € 16251/08 Boytsov Vladimir Vitaliyevich 1954 2 050 € 16849/08 Zhilinskiy Anatoliy Mikhaylovich 1929 1 400 € 39590/08 Bogach Igor Ivanovich 1959 4 000 €   [1] Rectified on 10 March 2010: the text was “Gonchar Nikolay Petrovich”