CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s7779956E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s3D844DE2 { 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:bottom } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; 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; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sB7FB9D9B { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s70B41AB9 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-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:bottom } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s256014D3 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; 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:bottom } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; 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 } .s309031D4 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s4A0B41BA { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5810335 { 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:bottom } .s58A9D3DE { 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 } .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 } .s8A9FD641 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s782F68DE { 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:bottom } .s32ABB12B { 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 } .sD528BA7B { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { 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 } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-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 } .sEB10024A { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } FIRST SECTION DECISION   This version was rectified on 16 November 2010, 28 February 2011 and 24   November 2011 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court   Application no. 11373/03 by Anatoliy Nikolayevich SOBOL and 35 other applications against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   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 81 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. 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. 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. THE LAW Following 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. Certain others failed to reply. A majority of the applicants disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Several applicants furthermore challenged the modalities of the execution of their judgments at the domestic level and, in particular, alleged inadequate indexation of regular payments in comparison with the inflation rate in the country. Finally, some applicants cast doubts as to whether the Government acknowledged the violations and would comply with their terms once the Court struck the applications out of its list. 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). 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 delay(s) in each particular case (see Burdov (no. 2) , cited above, §§ 99 and 154). Insofar as several applicants contest the execution modalities, the Court reiterates that such grievances must be first and foremost submitted to domestic courts, which are better placed than the Court to ascertain the compliance with the Russian law in this area, including the specific index-linking requirements provided therein (see Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), no.   14330/07 et al ., 5   February   2009). 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, 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 (CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065) and Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)158 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)). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations; Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President ANNEX     Application no. Last name Forename Born Compensation offered (euros) 1 11373/03 SOBOL ANATOLIY NIKOLAYEVICH 1958 2240.00 2 14008/03 RYCHKOV ALEKSANDR MIKHAYLOVICH 1953 2000.00 3 34929/03 PLYUSHCH OLEG VYACHESLAVOVICH 1976 680.00 4 35876/03 MOSHKOVSKIY VADIM FEDOROVICH 1943 1500.00 5 27237/04 ZHILYAKOV VLADIMIR ALEKSANDROVICH 1947 2000.00 6 29174/04 ISMIYEV ALEKSANDR MAMEDOVICH 1946 4800.00 7 29936/04 MAZUR OLEG VASILYEVICH 1966 2000.00 8 32459/04 STOKOLEVA MARINA VASILYEVNA 1959 3471.00     BORODINA NATALYA VIKTOROVNA 1970 4000.00     REDKINA LYUBOV VIKTOROVNA 1974 4000.00     ZHUKOVA ZINAIDA NIKOLAYEVNA 1952 3468.00 9 33986/04 LISYANSKIY BORIS GEORGIYEVICH 1946 2200.00 10 36053/04 KIRICHENKO LYUBOV FEDOROVNA 1957 3700.00     SUSLOVA MARIYA DMITRIYEVNA 1956 3200.00     MINAKOVA SVETLANA ALEKSANDROVNA 1962 3200.00 11 38750/04 LEPESHKOVA YEVGENIYA IVANOVNA 1951 3000.00 12 40366/04 PETROV ALEKSANDR NIKOLAYEVICH - 1600.00 13 41745/04 ZAKHAROVA IRINA MAKARYEVNA 1919 3450.00 14 929/04 GLAZKOV VLADIMIR ANDREYEVICH 1941 1500.00 15 10525/05 KUZIN YURIY GEORGIYEVICH 1947 1860.00 16 11946/05 KRECHETOV ALEKSANDR IVANOVICH 1956 1065.00 17 12178/05 CHUDINOV NIKOLAY MATVEYEVICH 1943 2300.00 18 1862/05 CHERNOV BORIS KONSTANTINOVICH 1938 4700.00     CHERNOVA VALENTINA PETROVNA 1937 3200.00 19 21154/05 FROLETSKAYA MARINA NIKOLAYEVNA 1961 3800.00 20 30880/05 TARKHOVA SVETLANA VALENTINOVNA 1956 3800.00 21 40158/05 BORODINA YELIZAVETA EMANUILOVNA 1947 2600.00 22 10624/06 BORISKINA VALENTINA ANTONOVNA 1950 1640.00     ALEKSEYEV VYACHESLAV VSEVOLODOVICH 1945 1640.00     BARYSHEVA MARIYA STEPANOVNA 1943 1640.00     DUBINKINA VALENTINA SERGEYEVNA 1952 1640.00     DYAGOLCHENKO VIKTOR GRIGORYEVICH 1956 1640.00     GRIGORYEVA ANTONINA VASILYEVNA 1930 1640.00     GURINA VALENTINA FILIPOVNA 1941 1640.00     KALOSHIN VIKTOR VASILYEVICH 1950 1640.00     KASHIRSKAYA ANNA VASILYEVNA 1944 1640.00     KHRAPOV VITALIY VASILYEVICH 1971 1640.00     KIZINA SVETLANA VIKTOROVNA 1976 1640.00     KOSTINA ZINAIDA IVANOVNA 1941 1640.00     KRAVTSOV ALEKSANDR ALEKSANDROVICH 1964 1640.00     MILYAYEV VASILIY TIMOFEYEVICH 1949 1640.00     MUKHORTOVA VALENTINA GEORGIYEVNA 1957 1640.00     PLUZHNIKOVA LYUDMILA MIKHAYLOVNA 1952 1640.00     POPOVA ZINAIDA MIKHAYLOVNA 1966 1640.00     SAFONOVA TATYANA NIKOLAYEVNA 1953 1640.00     SEREBRYANSKAYA GALINA PAVLOVNA 1946 1640.00     SHMARINA IRINA ALEKSEYEVNA 1979 1640.00     SOKRYUKINA NADEZHDA ALEKSEYEVNA 1946 1640.00     YERMAKOVA GALINA ALEKSEYEVNA 1972 1640.00     YERMAKOVA YELENA ALEKSANDROVNA 1958 1640.00 23 26356/06 FILONOV ALEKSANDR GRIGORYEVICH 1938 2500.00 24 27399/06 ARIPSHEV ZAMIR ASLANBIYEVICH 1980 4000.00 25 29210/06 OSOVSKIY NIKOLAY ALEKSANDROVICH 1945 2900.00 26 35448/06 PANKOV ANDREY VLADIMIROVICH 1977 1050.00 27 40922/06 POPOV NIKOLAY NIKOLAYEVICH 1953 4000.00 28 4880/06 POTSELUYEV VALERIY YEVGENYEVICH 1973 1000.00 29 50596/06 VALUYEV ANATOLIY GRIGORYEVICH 1938 1200.00 30 8422/06 LIKHACHEV SERGEY PETROVICH 1954 1240.00 31 25179/07 ALBEGOV GENNADIY NIKOLAYEVICH 1968 1781.00     AMILAKHANOV [1] YURIY GUSINOVICH 1958 1691.00     ATAYEV VALERIY YURYEVICH 1965 1568.00     BOTSIYEV KHETAG SERGEYEVICH 1958 1363.00     DAVYDOV GENNADIY VIKTOROVICH 1965 1796.00     DZHIGKAYEV OLEG SOSLANOVICH 1960 1796.00     FEOFANIDI IORDAM [2] GEORGIYEVICH 1962 1567.00     GABIYEV GEORGIY GRAMITONOVICH 1973 1537.00     GASANOVA RAISA GEORGIYEVNA 1936 1373.00 [3]     GUDIYEV KHADZHIMURAT KHETAGOVICH 1964 1625.00     GUDIYEV KHASAN KHETAGOVICH 1966 1712.00     KAIROV VYACHESLAV BORISOVICH 1968 1370.00     KAIROV GEORGIY BORISOVICH 1966 1370.00     KACHMAZOV AMIRAN ILYICH 1943 1593.00     LOLAYEV ALAN RUSLANOVICH 1967 1442.00     POPOV ANTON MIKHAYLOVICH 1972 1915.00     STEPKIN ALEKSANDR ANATOLYEVICH 1954 1636.00     TOKAZOV MURAT ASLANBEKOVICH 1969 1581.00 32 34605/07 NOSOV ALEKSANDR ALBERTOVICH 1960 2600.00 33 35725/07 KOMAROV VASILIY NIKOLAYEVICH 1940 750.00 34 3738/07 LUKIN BORIS NIKOLAYEVICH 1946 900.00 35 39663/07 MALINOVA NADEZHDA IVANOVNA 1971 2500.00 36 4109/08 ZHOGIN ANATOLIY MIKHAYLOVICH 1967 960.00   [1] .     Rectified on 28 February 2011: the surname was “AMILOKHANOV” [2] .     Rectified on 24 November 2011: the first name was “ IORDAN” [3] .     Rectified on 16 November 2010: the sum was “1363.00”