CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 février 2012

.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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s19810247 { 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:#c0c0c0 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE0160E0F { 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:#c0c0c0 } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA99A98F0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } FIRST SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 29 August 2012 and 24 April 2013 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court Application no. 25187/07 Genrikh Nikolayevich AGASIYEV and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7   February 2012 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2004, 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 whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix below. Mr O. Anisimov died on 27   June 2000 before the individual application on his behalf was lodged under Article   34 by Ms   V.   Anisimova. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr A. Nosov who practised in Vladikavkaz and Mr D. Gorev, a lawyer practising in Offenbach am Main, Germany. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented first by Ms V. Milinchuk and then by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representatives 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 are acting or former police officers who participated in the conflict-resolution operations in the republics of North Ossetia and Ingushetia in 1992. They subsequently sued the North Ossetia-Alania Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior for arrears of various allowances due to them for the period of service. On various dates in 2001 and 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz allowed their claims. These judgments became binding and were enforced in 2004 and 2005. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement or belated enforcement of the judgments in their favour. They also complained that the authorities had refused to pay them some other amounts they had allegedly been entitled to and invoked Article   14 of the Convention alleging that they had been subjected to discrimination in comparison to other police officers who had received such payments. THE LAW 1.     Following the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above, the Government informed the Court of the payment of the domestic court award in Mr Anisimov’s favour and submitted a unilateral declaration in his respect designed to provide acknowledgment and redress of the belated enforcement. However, given that Mr Anisimov died in 2000, the complaint lodged by Ms Anisimova on his behalf on 25 March 2004 is incompatible with the Convention ratione personae in the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) of the Convention and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 2.     The Government informed the Court in a similar manner of the payment of the domestic court awards in the remaining fifty applicants’ favour and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issue of belated enforcement. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the excessive duration of enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated in the appendix. The remainder of the declarations reads 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.” The applicants disagreed with the Government’s declarations insisting on examination of the rest of their complaints. 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 paragraph 1 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 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 explicitly acknowledged by the Government. 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 this complaint. 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 this complaint. Accordingly, in so far as the complaint about delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour is concerned, the application 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 application to the list of cases (see E.G. v.   Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, §   29, ECHR 2008 (extracts)). 3.     The Court has considered the remaining complaints as submitted by the applicants. 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 application in this part is 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 Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application in the part concerning the complaint of non-enforcement in respect of the applicants out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Nina Vajić   Registrar   President   APPENDIX   Applicant’s name and date of birth Compensation offered (euros) Genrikh Nikolayevich AGASIYEV 27/03/1960   Oleg Sergeyevich ANISIMOV 20/06/2954 (died 27/06/2000)   Svetlana Khadzhimuratovna DZHIGKAYEVA 13/10/1937   Aslan Iranbekovich BADTIYEV 23/05/1965   Kazbek Kazgeriyevich BADTIYEV 04/01/1958   Safarbek Surkayevich BAROYEV 15/05/1955   Kazbek Muratbekovich BITIMIROV 03/03/1960   Valeriy Arkadyevich BOLIYEV 15/04/1956   Artur Kimovich CHELDIYEV 12/08/1971   Taimuraz Yefimovich CHELDIYEV 01/04/1952   Akhsar Nikolayevich CHOCHIYEV 02/07/1968   Akhsarbek Mikhaylovich DAMZOV 26/11/1954   Yuriy Grigoryevich DZHAGAYEV 25/07/1969   Kostan Mikhaylovich DZHIMIYEV 14/07/1962   Artur Aslanbekovich DZANAGOV 06/01/1961   Ruslan Khadzhumarovich DZULAYEV [1] 15/11/1953   Fatima Mikhaylovna DUDIYEVA 01/11/1959   Shamil Aleksandrovich FARNIYEV 13/01/1948   Inal Khazbiyevich GABANOV 05/05/1971   Valentina Vladimirovna GADZAOVA 05/08/1954   Irbek Akhsarbekovich GADZAOV 23/10/1956   Taymuraz Lentoyevich GOBOZOV 17/09/1963   Fatima Timofeyevna GOGELIYA 22/02/1959   Taymuraz Dmitriyevich GOLOYEV 05/04/1956   Murat Zaurbekovich GUBAYEV 09/01/1960   Vyacheslav Omarbiyevich GULUYEV 06/03/1963   Vladimir Mironovich IKAYEV 22/04/1976   Tamerlan Turbekovich KABANOV 17/03/1961   Kazbek Soltanbekovich KAYTUKOV 27/01/1961   Erik Vladimirovich KASAYEV 29/04/1965   Vidadi Tarverdiyevich KERIMOV 03/07/1978   Oleg Savelyevich KHABAYEV 13/04/1966   Sergey Sergeyevich KHADZHIYERIDI 13/01/1960   Kazbek Khasanovich KHETAGUROV 11/06/1959   Feliks Yevgenyevich KOZAYEV 07/02/1975   Ruslan Sergeyevich KOKAYEV 16/08/1962   Muraz Buriyevich KUDUKHOV 03/04/1956   Artur Magomedkhanovich [2] MAGOMEDKHANOV 04/06/1966   Viktor Valentinovich MINAYEV 01/09/1953   Oleg Nikolayevich NOSACHEV 14/10/1966   Iosif Otaryevich POPKHADZE 13/02/1955   Dmitriy Ivanovich PRESNYAKOV 11/04/1971   Marina Borisovna PROSKURKO 08/08/1966   Aleksandr Khetagovich RAMONOV 03/08/1960   Sergey Nikolayevich ROYENKO 27/02/1961   Yuriy Petrovich SAKKAYEV 12/01/1958   Avtandil Vladimirovich SANAKOYEV 13/02/1966   Valeriy Nikolayevich SARAYEV 06/08/1955   Yelena Vitalyevna ZAKHAROVA 10/03/1959   Sergey Vyacheslavovich ZAKHAROV 23/02/1962   Mairbek Grigoryevich KHUBAYEV 02/01/1955 1,610     --     1,370     1,490     1,540     1,500     1,540     1,540     1,585     1,415     1,360     1,535     1,590     1,530     1,420     1,290     1,510     1,560     1,680     1,700     1,705     1,455     1,490     1,640     1,340     1,320     1,720     1,510     1,200     1,490     1,690     1,570     1,690     1,700     1,245     1,400     1,430       1,775     1,600     1,600     1,670     1,720     1,680     1,590     1,600     1,630     1,705     1,545     1,670     1,600     1,525                                   [1] .   Rectified on 24 April 2013: the text was “Khadzhimuratovich” 2.   Rectified on 29 August 2012: the text was “Madomedkhanovich”