CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 novembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sEAF5F470 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4E34B50A { 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:middle } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s1C2B10C2 { 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:middle } .s23CD0580 { 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:middle } .s88A4DB4E { 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:middle } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6A269875 { 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:middle } .s11BEB50D { 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:middle } .sEAD70FA9 { 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:middle } .s241BF43A { 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:middle } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 4113/05 by Praskovya Grigoryevna CHERKASOVA and 3 other applications (nos.   28882/05, 33178/08 and 1305/09) against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25   November 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 by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of its list of cases and the applicants’ positive replies to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applications were lodged by four Russian nationals whose names and years of birth are tabulated in the annex. They were represented before the Court by Mr I.V. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practising in Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyshkin, 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 domestic courts, as detailed in the annex, granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the authorities to provide them with monetary compensation. Those judgments, which had become final and enforceable, remained unenforced for long periods of time. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments in their favour. THE LAW Following the pilot judgment in Burdov (no. 2) , cited above, the Government informed the Court of the payment in 2010 of the domestic court awards due to the applicants and submitted unilateral declarations dated 13 July 2010. They acknowledged “the excessive duration of the enforcement” of the final and enforceable judgments in the applicants’ favour. They also declared their intention to pay each of the applicants sums detailed in the annex as just satisfaction in this respect. They went on to invite the Court to strike the cases out of the Court’s list of cases. The remainder of their declarations read as follows: “The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 [Convention]. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it 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”. In their letters submitted in response, the applicants agreed with the sums of compensation proposed in the Government’s declarations. The Court reiterates that under Article   37 §   1   (c) it is empowered 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”. The Court recalls that it ordered the Russian Federation to grant redress 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 15 January 2009 ( Burdov (no. 2) , cited above, §§ 144-145). Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment. The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the enforcement of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour is acknowledged by the Government. It also notes that the compensation offered is comparable with Court awards in similar cases. 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine ) does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (see Sobol and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos. 11373/03 et al. , 24 June 2010). Accordingly, they should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in the context of the execution of the pilot judgment under with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. 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 its list of cases (see Sobol and Others , cited above). For these reasons, the Court unanimously 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. Name and year of birth of the applicant Details of the judgments in question Sum of compensation indicated in the unilateral declaration 4113/05 Praskovya Grigoryevna CHERKASOVA 1952 31 August 2000, Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, child allowance EUR 4,700 28882/05 Olga Borisovna PODOROZHNAYA 1959 15 February 2000, Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh, child allowance EUR 5,000 33178/08 Irina Ivanovna PONOMAREVA 1965 27 January 2000, Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, child allowance EUR 5,000 1305/09 Raisa Vasilyevna POPOVA 1930 28 November 2000, Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh, pension arrears EUR 5,300