CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 décembre 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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s208721C6 { width:191.62pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; 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 } .s9A01AD12 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.75pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s352FB0A7 { height:17.25pt } .sC6034500 { height:34.5pt } .s528E4FD3 { width:10.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s42E65D7A { height:27.75pt } .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. 2259/04 Pavel Ivanovich LEVASHKO against Russia and 15 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6   December 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 (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ‑ ...), Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are sixteen Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix to the present decision. 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 domestic courts found in the applicants’ favour against various State bodies, and their judgments became binding and enforceable. In the cases of Mr Kartavtsev (application no. 23897/08), Ms   Orlova (application no. 41921/08) and Mr Visitskiy (application no.   32215/08), after the judgments entered into force the State applied to the courts that had ruled on the cases seeking amendment of the enforcement method due to the State’s inability to enforce the judgments as they stood for various reasons. The proceedings for examination of such applications lasted from four to seven months. The judgments in the applicants’ favour were subsequently enforced. The names of the courts that issued those judgments, the dates when they became final and the dates of their enforcement are listed in the appendix. Mr Litvinov (application no. 58519/08) and Ms Litvinova (application no.   34646/09), who considered that the Pension Fund was not applying the regional coefficient of 1.7 to their pensions in accordance with the earlier judgments to this effect, brought a complaint to court. By a judgment of 9   February 2010 the Neryungri Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) dismissed their action, deciding that the applicants’ pension was de facto paid with account of the sought regional co-efficient. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) on 12 April 2010. 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 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 argued that this complaint was inadmissible as the period of the delay in the enforcement of the judgments in the present cases had been reasonable, the judgments had been enforced in full and the way they had been enforced had complied with the requirements of the law. The applicants maintained their complaints. Some applicants expanded their applications by complaining about non-enforcement of newer judgments. Several applicants contested the fact of the full enforcement of the judgments or argued that the way of their enforcement had been unlawful. With regard to the complaints concerning newer judgments, the Court notes that these complaints were made after the communication of the applications to the Government and hence fall outside the scope of the present case. The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v.   Russia , no.   59498/00, ECHR 2002-III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v.   Russia , no. 22000/03, §   31, 15 February 2007). The Court observes that in fourteen of the present applications the period of enforcement of the judgments lasted up to one year. Having regard to its well-established case-law (see, among others, Belkin and Others v.   Russia   (dec.), nos. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009), the Court considers that these periods complied with the requirements of the Convention. In three of the present applications where the State applied for amendment of the enforcement method, the period of enforcement lasted over one year but no longer than one year and seven months. The Court accepts that by applying for such amendment the State acted in good faith with a view to enable enforcement of the judgments and considers that in these circumstances the delays in the enforcement were also not in breach of the requirements of the Convention. In so far as Mr Litvinov and Ms Litvinova contest the fact of the enforcement of their judgments in the part concerning calculation of their pension, the Court observes that the subsequent court decisions established that the applicants’ pension was de facto calculated in accordance with the previous judicial rulings on this subject and that the applicants suffered no disadvantage. The Court sees no reason to depart from the findings of the domestic courts in this case. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 3.     Some of the applicants complained that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgments by domestic means had proved ineffective. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in the terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, §   52, Series   A no.   131). Since the Court has found above that the applicants’ complaint about the delayed enforcement is manifestly ill-founded, Article 13 has no application in the present case. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 4.     Some of the applicants also 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 this part of the applications is also manifestly ill-founded and must be 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 name date of birth place of residence Judgment by Final on Enforced on   2259/04 08/12/2003 Pavel Ivanovich LEVASHKO 22/08/1950 Zelenograd Town Court, Rostov Region 09/07/2003 11/12/2003   3579/04 30/12/2003 Aleksandr Fedorovich MISHURA 07/09/1945 Kirovskiy District Court, Astrakhan 19/09/2000 12/10/2000   23510/04 05/06/2004 Nikolay Innokentyevich SEDALISHCHEV 02/10/1950 Yakutsk Town Court, Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) 11/08/2004 03/09/2004   26372/04 21/05/2004 Nikolay Stepanovich POLEZHAYEV 22/05/1949 Kirovskiy District Court, Chelyabinsk 16/07/2001 June 2002   34264/05 16/08/2005 Vyacheslav Vitalyevich KAMENSKIY 22/11/1963 Lyublinskiy District Court, Moscow 11/04/2005 05/10/2005 21/02/2006 29/11/2006 Raduzhnyy Town Court, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region 05/04/2006 09/11/2006   25714/06 06/05/2006 Anatoliy Afanasyevich LOSITSKIY 28/06/1946 Obninsk Town Court, Kaluga Region 08/12/2005 06/06/2006   45071/06 02/08/2006 Gennadiy Vasilyevich KOVALEV 01/01/1965 Tsentralnyy District Court, Kaliningrad 13/07/2005 12/07/2005   8199/07 27/12/2006 Aleksey Valeryevich CHECHIKOV 18/05/1977 Leninskiy District Court, Smolensk 27/06/2006 02/04/2007   23897/08 04/05/2008 Aleksandr Nikolayevich KARTAVTSEV 24/04/1951 Novovoronezh Town Court, Voronezh Region 04/09/2007 26/11/2008          32215/08 19/05/2008 Nikolay Pavlovich VISITSKIY 29/07/1946 Novovoronezh Town Court, Voronezh Region 16/10/2007 28/10/2008          41667/08 06/06/2008 Aleksandr Nikolayevich FILIMONOV 05/02/1955 Motovilikhinskiy District Court, Perm 13/12/2007 22/08/2008          41921/08 08/08/2008 Tatyana Ivanovna ORLOVA 17/07/1950 Novovoronezh Town Court, Voronezh Region 03/08/2007 23/10/2008          42134/08 21/07/2008 Aleksandr Petrovich DOROZHKIN 08/04/1954 Proletarskiy District Court, Saransk 10/01/2008 27/11/2008          45789/08 17/07/2008 Vasiliy Mikhaylovich DIKOV 05/03/1953 Proletarskiy District Court, Saransk 10/01/2008 27/11/2008          58519/08 27/10/2008 Valeriy Vladimirovich LITVINOV 02/10/1942 Neryungri Town Court, Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) 30/07/2003 March 2004 16/08/2004 July 2004          34646/09 27/10/2008 Lyudmila Aleksandrovna LITVINOVA 16/12/1949 Neryungri Town Court, Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) 30/07/2003 March 2004 16/08/2004 July 2004