CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 janvier 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3BA7E44F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.85pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s4DE88426 { width:180.29pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7E0F3F91 { 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; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3C2CFC22 { 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; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s684B547D { 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; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2F262D5A { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s2342A031 { 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:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCDBD1948 { width:15.71pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 21 March 2011 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 7120/03 Lidiya Sergeyevna LUNINA and Others against Russia (see annex for other applications) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13   January 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Sverre Erik Jebens, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   George Nicolaou, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy 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 Russian nationals. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated below. Ms A. Issayeva, Ms   M.   Khabarova, Ms T. Yakovleva and Mr   K.   Mokhnatkin died after lodging their applications under Article 34 of the Convention. Their successors Mr I. Zhukov, Ms N. Khabarova, Ms   N.   Sokolova and Ms   N.   Makhnatkina, respectively, indicated their interest in pursuing the proceedings. 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. In particular, on 27 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded Ms Grigorenko’s mother, who had died in September 2000, a certain amount for indexation of her pension (application no.   14218/06). The Government stated that Ms Grigorenko had obtained her inheritance certificate on 23 November 2005 and submitted it together with the writ of execution shortly thereafter. The judgment was enforced on 20   December 2005. 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 I. LOCUS STANDI The Court takes note of certain applicants’ death and of the interest of their successors in pursuing the proceedings. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, §   41, ECHR 2000-IX). Furthermore, in some cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006). The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the cases referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights the applicants sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v.   the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, §   1, 12 July 2001). The Government did not contend that any of the successors mentioned above had no standing to pursue the cases. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicants’ successors have a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications. II. COMPLAINTS OF NON-ENFORCEMENT Regarding Ms Grigorenko’s complaint of delayed enforcement of the judgment of 27 November 2000, the Court takes cognisance of the Government’s submissions and is satisfied that it was the applicant’s responsibility to inform the State of her status as heir to the deceased claimant with an award against the State. The Court considers that in this situation the State cannot bear responsibility for the delay in the payment of the award (see Ziabreva v. Russia , no. 23567/06, § 21, 18 December 2008). Accordingly, this complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As to the other applications, 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. Others failed to reply. A majority disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. 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 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 delays in each particular case (see Burdov (no. 2) , cited above, §§ 99 and 154). 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, in so far as the complaints about delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour are concerned, the applications should be struck out of the list. As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings, 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)1 58 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)). III. OTHER COMPLAINTS Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles of the Convention. However, in the 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 they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or 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;   Declares the complaint of non-enforcement made by Ms L. Grigorenko inadmissible; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations; Decides to strike the applications in respect of non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour out of its list of cases; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. André Wampach   Sverre Erik Jebens Deputy Registrar   President ANNEX   No Application No Last name Forename Born Compensation offered (euros)   7120/03 LUNINA   BARKALOVA   CHERNYSHOVA   DAMARAD   DAVYDOVA   GLADILOVA   ISSAYEVA   KALAYEVA   KHABAROVA   KHVOSTOVA   MALKHOVA   MAMONOVA   PLOTNIKOVA   SAMSONOVA   SELIVANOVA   SHUMILINA   SVIRIDOV   YERINA   ZABALUYEVA   LIDIYA SERGEYEVNA   LIDIYA MITROFANOVNA   OLGA MIKHAYLOVNA   BORIS ALEKSANDROVICH   ANASTASIYA IVANOVNA   GALINA SERGEYEVNA   ALEKSANDRA PAVLOVNA   RAISA ILYINICHNA   MARIYA ILYINICHNA   ANNA SEMENOVNA   ZOYA NIKOLAYEVNA   TAMARA ANDREYEVNA   LIDIYA VYACHESLAVOVNA   VALENTINA GRIGORYEVNA   MARIYA VASILYEVNA   TATYANA VASILYEVNA   GENNADIY MIKHAYLOVICH   YELENA PETROVNA   NATALYA SERGEYEVNA   1958   1940   1952   1957   1940   1944   1929   1949   1933   1940   1938   1944   1960   1943   1939   1945   1932   1955   1953 1,800   2,100   2,000   1,500   2,150   850   1900   1,700   2,300   2,150   1,800   1,800   2,300   2,000   2,000   2,100   1,980   1,900   1,600   34436/04 MOROZ   YAKOVLEVA   SELEZNEV   RAIDA VIKTOROVNA   TATYANA PETROVNA   YURIY IVANOVICH 1936   1934   1940 2,500   2,600   2,500   39945/04 KRAVCHENKO   ALEKSANDR ANTONOVICH 1941 [1]   3,000   2107/05 KURZHALOV   OLEG PETROVICH 1954 610   3453/05 TURMANOV   TARIYEL NIKOLAYEVICH 1949 [2] 2,456   4249/05 MAKSIM   ANDREY ANDREYEVICH 1981 1,100   4523/05 PETUKHOV   ANATOLIY ALEKSANDROVICH 1949 2,905   4943/05 SANIN   VIKTOR ALEKSANDROVICH 1956 1,584   12254/05   KOSYGIN VYACHESLAV FEDOROVICH 1948 785              13094/05 DUBRAVIN NIKOLAY GRIGORYEVICH   1949 2,904              18611/05 GERASIMENKO   GALINA VASILYEVNA 1945 1,760              22256/05 NOSKOV   ROMAN VIKTOROVICH 1961 2,670              22668/05 MILKEVICH   YURIY STANISLAVOVICH 1957 1,640              31957/05 MARTIROSYAN   EDVART NAPOLEONOVICH 1956 766              33595/05 KUNDYUSOV   ANDREY IVANOVICH 1962 966              36458/05 PUSTOVAROV ANDREY VLADIMIROVICH 1972 2,970              38083/05 ANDREYTSEVA   CHERNENKO   GALINA ALEKSANDROVNA   GALINA GRIGORYEVNA 1955   1955 1,087   1,087              42513/05 VOBLIKOV   VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH 1948 620              2060/06 FEDOREY   ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH 1958 2,430              4138/06 USHAKOVA   NADEZHDA NIKOLAYEVNA 1957 3,925              4158/06 SALMENKOVA   GALINA RUFOVNA 1960 1,572              14218/06 GUBINA   NOVIKOVA   ZHIGULINA   KARPOVA   GRIGORENKO   TAMARA AFANASYEVNA   VALENTINA VASILYEVNA   PELAGEYA ALEKSEYEVNA   LIDIYA IVANOVNA   LIDIYA NIKOLAYEVNA 1934   1931   1935   1941   1934 1,500   1,500   1,500   1,500   Declared inadmissible              15400/06 GREKOVA   OLGA PAVLOVNA 1968 2,609              18363/06 SAZONOV   SERGEY ANATOLYEVICH 1958 3,955              28225/06 GADZHIYEV   OMAR DZHABRAILOVICH 1961 2,000              31401/06 YERMOLAYEV   VLADIMIR SEMENOVICH 1953 990              42611/06   ZAO LIZINGOVAYA KOMPANIYA ‘GEOLIZING’       1,628              44973/06 SEMITKOVSKIY   LAPIK   SOKOLENKO KRAMARENKO   SHCHEGELSKIY   ALCHINSKIY   VITALIY GRIGORYEVICH   ALEKSEY LEONIDOVICH   IGOR VLADIMIROVICH DMITRIY ANATOLYEVICH   NIKOLAY NIKOLAYEVICH   NIKOLAY ANATOLYEVICH 1957   1953   1964 1967   1962   1960 1,553   2,096   1,778 1,743   1,447   1,592              45414/06 TSAPENKO   GEORGIY GEORGIYEVICH 1950   650              2258/07 ANTOSHKIV   NADEZHDA ALEKSANDROVNA 1937 835              5669/07 KONSTANTINOV   MIKHAIL VASILYEVICH 1956 5,000              5672/07 LOSEVA   LYUBOV YAKOVLEVNA 1950 700              11344/07 YEVSENOCHKIN   VLADIMIR PAVLOVICH 1946 804              14538/07 MAKHNATKINA NINA YEVGENYEVNA 1935   1,610              19514/07 PRIKHODCHENKO   NIKOLAY GRIGORYEVICH 1951   857              19651/07 GORSKAYA   NATALIYA MIKHAYLOVNA 1946   927              25181/07 BAZAYEVA   BARSEGYANTS   DOROKHOV   GAZZAYEV   KIRICHENKO   KOBLOV   KOLIYEV   KORAYEV   KRAVCHENKO   KULUMBEKOV   PAVLIOSHVILI   POSYAKIN   SAFIBEKOV   TIGIYEV   TOMAYEV   ZHITNIK   SVETLANA FEDOROVNA   AVETIS SARKISOVICH   SERGEY NIKOLAYEVICH   VIKTOR KAZBEKOVICH   IGOR STANISLAVOVICH   FELIKS CHERMENOVICH   ALAN KHASANBEKOVICH   ANATOLIY PAVLOVICH   SERGEY NIKOLAYEVICH   VALERIY GAVRILOVICH   GELA SHAVLOVICH   DMITRIY VALENTINOVICH   ZANGIR KHALIDDIN-OGLY   RUSLAN ANDREYEVICH   OLEG IRAKLIYEVICH   SOSLAN YEVGENYEVICH 1957   1959   1956   1970   1973   1966   1967   1955   1965   1963   1967   1955   1969   1961   1953   1969 1,460   1,370   1,600   1,750   1,450   1,600   1,320   1,780   1,350   1,650   1,350   3,000   1,670   1,470   1,550   1,600              30260/07 BUGLEYEV   OLEG ALEKSEYEVICH 1952 2,200              35007/07 TATARSHAO   AMIR KHADZHIBIYEVICH 1952 1,394              36894/07 RESIN   ANDREY IGOREVICH 1974 2,467              37004/07 BELYANIN   ANATOLIY VASILYEVICH 1948 820              44866/07 BULATOV   NIKOLAY ILYICH 1939   835              56480/07 YERIN   SERGEY VASILYEVICH 1963 900              10318/08 ROZHKOV   VLADIMIR VASILYEVICH 1955 3,600              12376/08 KALOYEV   TAYMURAZ MAISEYEVICH 1981 2,800              16247/08 LISITSKAYA   ANNA MIKHAYLOVNA 1931 5,000              20802/08 LEDENTSOV   GENNADIY YEVGENYEVICH 1939 500              20806/08 SHAYEKHOV   YANAGAYEV   ISKANDER MINNEKHANOVICH   ALEKSEY DMITRIYEVICH 1953   1987 1,150   1,150              22165/08 KOLKHITOVA   ANDZELINA KAZBEKOVNA 1969 3,400              30626/08 KOCHKINA   IDEYA IVANOVNA 1936 1,020              30632/08 SOKOL   BORIS MIRONOVICH 1944 870              32219/08 KOPCHENKO   ZINAIDA IVANOVNA 1943 860              32221/08 MITROFANOVA   NADEZHDA IVANOVNA 1950 880              32225/08 KOCHKIN   VLADIMIR FEDOROVICH 1936 1,050              40332/08 PETRAKI   VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH 1982 3,000              59373/08 SHERIYEV   KHABAS MUKHAMEDOVICH 1975 3,900              8421/09 SHAMANAYEVA   TATYANA YEVGENYEVNA 1950 3,010   [1] Rectified on 21 March 2011   : the text was “1954” [2] Rectified on 21 March 2011   : the text was “1954”