CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 novembre 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 } .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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .s3BA7E44F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.85pt; text-align:justify } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBA4F6D80 { width:179.82pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9BEAF439 { width:171.29pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s64189EA1 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .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 } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 45236/04 Adolf Borisovich ZAVYALOV against Russia and 2 other applications The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15   November 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Julia Laffranque, 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 v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...), Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are three Russian nationals who were born on the dates listed in the appendix and live in various regions of Russia. Mr A. Zavyalov died after lodging his application under Article 34 of the Convention. Ms   T.M. Zavyalova and Ms O.A. Stepanova indicated their interest in pursuing the proceedings as his successors. They were represented before the Court by Mr S. Kuzin, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The domestic courts found in the applicants’ favour against various State bodies, and their judgments became binding and enforceable. After a certain delay ranging from two to eight years those judgments were enforced. Following the Burdov (no.2) pilot judgment, the proceedings in the present cases were adjourned to allow the Government to resolve the pending applications. The Government acknowledged excessive duration of the enforcement in the present cases and submitted unilateral declarations wherein they agreed to pay the applicants various amounts of compensation for the damage sustained. After entry into force of the Compensation Act (see below) in May 2010, Mr Zavyalov’s heirs and the other applicants brought to courts their claims for compensation of non ‑ pecuniary damage arising out of the delayed enforcement. Taking account of the enforcement delays, the nature of the awards and the efforts made to obtain the payments, the courts acknowledged violation of the applicants’ right to enforcement of the judgments within a reasonable time. On various dates the applicants’ claims were granted and compensation was awarded. The dates of the original judgments and their enforcement, as well as the dates of the compensatory judgments and the amounts awarded, are listed in the appendix. B.     Relevant domestic law Federal Law no. 68- ФЗ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” of 30 April 2010 (in force from 4   May 2010) provides that in the case of a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or of the right to enforcement of a final judgment, Russian citizens are entitled to seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Federal Law No. 69- ФЗ , adopted on the same day, introduced the pertinent changes into Russian legislation. The transitional arrangements (section 6.2 of Federal Law no.   68 ‑ ФЗ ) provided that everyone who had a pending application before the European Court of Human Rights concerning a complaint of the type described in the law had six months to lodge the complaint with the domestic courts. COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicants complained of delayed enforcement of the judgments. 2.     Some applicants complained that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgments by domestic means proved ineffective. 3.     Some applicants also made accessory complaints under assorted Articles of the Convention. THE LAW 1.     Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them and consider them in a single decision. 2.     The Court takes note of the death of Mr Zavyalov (application no.   45236/04) and of the interest of his 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 applicant 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 applicant’s successors have a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications. 3. The applicants complained of delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Insofar as relevant, these provisions read as follows: Article 6 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” The Government submitted in respect of Mr Vetlugin and Mr Grigoryev (applications nos. 13452/07 and 54434/08) that the applicants had lost their victim status as a result of the judgments compensating them for the delayed enforcement. They asked the Court to declare those applications inadmissible. As to the application lodged by Mr Zavyalov (45236/04), they did not specify their final position regarding the case but informed the Court of the adoption and enforcement of the judgment awarding the applicant’s heirs compensation for violation of his right to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time. The applicants made no comments. 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 that the applicants successfully used the new domestic remedy which was made available to them by the Compensation Act. The domestic courts duly considered their cases in line with the Convention criteria, found violations of their right to enforcement of the judgment within a reasonable time and awarded compensation amounts comparable with the Court’s awards under Article 41 in similar cases. The domestic courts’ judgements should therefore be regarded as providing a satisfactory response to the Burdov pilot judgment. The Court concludes that the authorities acknowledged the breach of the applicants’ right under the Convention and granted them adequate and sufficient redress. Accordingly, they may no longer claim to be victims of the violation. It follows that this complaint must be declared manifestly ill-founded and rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. André Wampach   Peer Lorenzen   Deputy Registrar   President   No Application No Lodged on Applicant’s name and date of birth   Date of original judgment Date of enforcement of original judgment Date of judgment awarding compensation Amount of compensation (in euros)   45236/04 01/12/2004 Adolf Borisovich ZAVYALOV 26/04/1936 (succeeded by Tamara Mikhaylovna ZAVYALOVA and Olga Adolfovna STEPANOVA ) 20/03/2002 20/12/2010 11/01/2011 2,727 to each successor   13452/07 08/01/2007 Vasiliy Nikolayevich VETLUGIN 04/01/1974   24/06/2005 28/07/2008 19/10/2010 2,000   54434/08 11/09/2008 Sergey Vasilyevich GRIGORYEV 30/05/1975   21/12/2006 07/05/2009 20/12/2010 2,270