CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 2010

.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 } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 24169/05 by Vladimir Ivanovich KHALIN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2   December 2010 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 above application lodged on 24 May 2005 and communicated to the respondent Government on 4 June 2008, Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ‑ ...), Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimir Ivanovich Khalin, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Staryy Oskol. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Malykhin, a lawyer practising in Staryy Oskol. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour and their enforcement The applicant repeatedly sued the regional social authorities for payment of various benefits on account of his participation in the cleaning-up operation following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. In 2000 – 2005 the Staryy Oskol City Court of the Belgorod Region delivered five judgments in the applicant’s favour, awarding him several lump-sums in arrears and certain regular monetary payments. The judgments became final but their enforcement was delayed by the authorities. 2.     The Burdov pilot judgment and its consequences for similar cases On 15 January 2009 the Court delivered the Burdov (no.   2) pilot judgment cited above. It ordered the respondent State to set up an effective domestic remedy which would secure adequate and sufficient redress for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments. It also 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. The present case was communicated to the Government on 4   June   2008. The Court’s proceedings in the case were adjourned until 4 May 2010 pending the implementation of the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no.   2) , cited above, §   146, and point 8 of the operative part). The applicant was informed accordingly. 3.     The compensation for enforcement delays granted by domestic courts On 26 April 2010 the Staryy Oskol City Court of the Belgorod Region granted the applicant’s claim for damages resulting from delayed enforcement of the five judgments in his favour. It found that the five judgments had been fully enforced with various delays ranging between one and seven years, and ordered the authorities to pay a total of 235,000 Russian Roubles (approximately 6,000 Euro) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In so deciding, the court relied on Article 46 of the Russian Constitution, Articles 151 and 1069 of the Civil Code, and on the Convention provisions, as interpreted in the Court’s case-law. On 22 June 2010 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Belgorod Regional Court and became final. On 24 August 2010 the court award was paid to the applicant. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 of non-enforcement of five judgments in his favour. THE LAW The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status as a result of the judgment delivered in his favour on 26 April 2010 by the Staryy Oskol City Court of the Belgorod Region. In the Government view, the judgment acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s right and granted him adequate redress. They asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible. The applicant made no comment to the Government’s submission. The Court reiterates that for an applicant to be able to claim to be the victim of a violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, not only must he have the status of victim at the time the application is introduced, but such status must continue to obtain at all stages of the proceedings. A decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Amuur v.   France , 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR   1999 ‑ VI). The Court observes at the outset that the judgments in the applicant’s favour were enforced with various delays ranging between one and seven years. On 24 April 2010 the Staryy Oskol City Court of the Belgorod Region acknowledged those delays and awarded the applicant an amount equivalent to approximately 6,000 Euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Belgorod Regional Court and became final on 22   June   2010. The amount awarded was paid to the applicant on 24   August   2010. The Court notes in particular that the Staryy Oskol City Court considered the applicant’s case prior to the introduction of the new domestic remedy required by the Burdov pilot judgment (see details in Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v. Russia , nos. 27451/09 and 60650/09, §§ 9 and 15-20, 23   September 2010). Nevertheless, the court duly examined the case in line with the Convention criteria and awarded him a compensation amount comparable with the Court’s awards under Article   41 in similar cases. The domestic court’s judgement should therefore be regarded as providing a satisfactory response to the Burdov pilot judgment. The Court furthermore notes that the compensation was rapidly paid to the applicant as required by the Convention (see Burdov (no.   2) , cited above, §   99). The Court concludes that the authorities acknowledged the breach of the applicant’s right under the Convention and granted him adequate and sufficient redress. Accordingly, he may no longer claim to be a victim of the violation. It follows that the application must be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis Registrar President