CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 janvier 2011

.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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s2055D3B3 { width:16.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7C039683 { width:226.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7779956E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA22BE2CE { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 Applications nos. 11942/04, 9143/05, 29395/05, 3520/06, 6715/07, 25301/07, 36995/07, 54282/07, 9523/08 and 33948/08 by Viktor Aleksandrovich RISHE and Others against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6   January 2011 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 pilot judgment ( Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia , no.   33509/04, ECHR 2009-...), Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicants' replies thereto, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals whose personal details are tabulated in the annex. 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 obtained final and enforceable domestic judicial decisions awarding various monetary sums to them, payable from the State funds. The authorities delayed the enforcement of those decisions. THE COMPLAINTS The applicants complained mainly about the delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable decisions rendered domestically in their favour. Those complaints fell to be considered under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. THE LAW 1.     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. In their formal declarations submitted to the Court the Government acknowledged the excessive length of the enforcement of the final and enforceable domestic decisions in the applicants' favour. They also declared their intention to pay monetary sums, indicated in the annex, to the applicants by a way of just compensation. They went on to invite the Court to strike the present applications out of its list of cases. Some of the applicants disagreed claiming that the amount of compensations offered by the Government was insignificant. Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that... (c)     for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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.” Having examined the terms of the Government's declarations and sums offered to the applicants as a just satisfaction for acknowledged violations of the Convention, the Court concludes that they give the applicants redress as requested by the pilot judgment (cf. Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia , cited above, §§ 144-145). The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present applications. It is also satisfied that respect for human rights does not require it to continue this examination (see Sobol and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 11373/03 et al ., 24 June 2010). Accordingly, the present applications should be struck out of the Court's list of cases, in so far as the complaints about delayed enforcement of the domestic decisions in the applicants' favour are concerned. The Court underlines that the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the matter pursuant with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention in the context of its supervision of execution of the pilot judgment. The Court's present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore the present applications to its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention. 2.     Some of the applicants raised additional complaints referring to various provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. In 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 those complaints do not disclose any appearance of violations of the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. It follows that the applications in this part are 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; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as the non-enforcement complaints are concerned; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President ANNEX   No. Surname Other names Year of birth Amount of compensation (EUR) 11942/04 RISHE   Viktor   Aleksandrovich 1956 3,812 9143/05 SIZOV   Aleksandr   Yakovlevich 1961 907 29395/05 SOLODOVA   Natalya Ivanovna 1956 3,000 3520/06 MELEKHOVA   Galina Ivanovna 1939 2,800 6715/07 KORVYAKOV   Vladimir Kirillovich 1941 1,500 25301/07 MOMATENKO   Vladimir   Gennadyevich 1964 3,000 36995/07 GRUBA   Pavel   Mikhaylovich 1955 800 54282/07 PETROPAVLOVSKAYA   Olga   Nikolayevna 1962 2,250 9523/08 LAAR   Dina   Semenovna 1936 3,600 33948/08 PIROGOV   Viktor   Anatolyevich 1967 1,655