CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2FB67FAF { width:154.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3C33F117 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE22663AA { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sF2CE8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s80190776 { height:57.4pt } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 2355/06 Vladimir Terentyevich KARPENKO against Russia and 24 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   February 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on various dates 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: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were parties to civil proceedings that took place in courts of ordinary jurisdiction in various regions of Russia. These disputes concerned various civil matters such as labour, housing, property and monetary issues. In all of the above cases the domestic courts took lengthy periods of time to examine the applicants’ claims ranging between two and ten years. The applicants complained, among other matters, about the length of the proceedings in their cases. In certain cases they also complained of lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of excessive length of the proceedings. In case no. 44713/08, on 3 August 2011 the applicant’s widower, Kulichikhin Vladimir Vasilyevich, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 21 January 2011. He expressed his intention to continue the proceedings in her stead. THE LAW Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision. A.     Complaints about the length of proceedings On various dates the Government submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving this issue. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article   6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums tabulated below. Some applicants disagreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Some of them insisted on the examination of their applications on the merits. Some applicants failed to reply. 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 in paragraph 1   (a), (b), or   (c) of that Article. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of a case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18   September   2007). The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases is acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensations offered are comparable with Court’s awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia , of the specific delays in the proceedings in each particular case. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. As to whether the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto requires the Court to continue the examination of the present applications it does not see any compelling reason of public order to warrant examination of the present applications on the merits. Firstly, the Court has on numerous occasions determined issues analogous to those arising in the instant cases and ascertained in great detail the States’ obligations under the Convention in that respect (see, among many others, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, §§ 131 and 160, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Kormacheva v.   Russia , no.   53084/99, §§ 57 and 64, 29 January 2004). Secondly, on 4   May 2010 the Russian authorities introduced a new domestic remedy against unreasonable length of court proceedings, which was deemed prima facie effective by the Court and now requires to be exhausted (see Fakhretdinov and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos.   26716/09 et   al., 23 September 2010). As a consequence, an examination on the merits of the present cases would not bring any new element in this regard. Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned, that part of applications should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. B.     Complaints of lack of an effective domestic remedy Some applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings. The Government did not specify their position in relation to these complaints. The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduced by the federal laws №   68-FZ and № 69-FZ on 4 May 2010 in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009). On 23 September 2010 the Court decided that all new cases introduced after the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment, cited above, and falling within the scope of the new domestic remedy had to be submitted in the first place to the national courts (see Fakhretdinov and Others , cited above, §   32). The Court also stated that its position may be subject to review in the future, depending in particular on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent practice under the new law in line with the Convention requirements (ibid, § 33). Finally, the Court notes that all the applicants were in principle enabled to claim compensation under the transitional provisions of the new law and that they will in any event receive pecuniary compensation in respect of their grievances in accordance with the Government’s declarations examined above. Having regard to these special circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to continue a separate examination of the complaints under Article   13 in the present case ( see, Zemlyanskiy and Others v.   Russia (dec.) , nos.   18969/06 et al., 13 March 2012, and Pobudilina and Others v.   Russia   (dec.) , nos. 7142/05 et al., 29 March 2011 ) . C.     Other complaints Some applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. Having regard to 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 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; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike a part of the applications in respect of the length of proceedings out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaints of lack of an effective remedy; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2015. André Wampach   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No Application no Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Compensation offered (EUR)   2355/06 06/12/2005 Vladimir Terentyevich KARPENKO 10/02/1938 Korolev     3,000   2488/06 07/12/2005 Sergey Nikolayevich GEYGER 13/01/1961 Mezhdurechensk     2,000     2908/06 26/12/2005 Anna Siviryanovna BAYEVA 13/08/1938 Yekaterinburg   Sergey Viktorovich BAYEV 04/04/1961 Yekaterinburg   Tatyana Viktorovna SIDOROVA 26/03/1965 Yekaterinburg     2,800 to each       8162/06 26/01/2006 Vitaliy Sergeyevich ALEKSANDROV 29/08/1940 Zhukovka     2,700     9836/06 27/02/2006 Andrey Ivanovich KOLESNIKOV 03/04/1967 Seversk   Nikolay Veniaminovich KANDYBA 2,200     10564/06 21/02/2006 Vladimir Filippovich STAROKOZHEV 10/07/1941 Moscow     4,000     11275/06 12/03/2006 Yelena Konstantinovna RUMYANTSEVA 18/08/1941 St Petersburg     3,700     14136/06 25/01/2006 Sergey Leonardovich YATSYNO 20/02/1955 Novocherkassk   Aleksandr Sergeyevich YATSYNO 31/12/1986 Novocherkassk   Maksim Sergeyevich YATSYNO 03/12/1981 Novocherkassk   Aleksandra Nikolayevna YATSYNO 27/03/1959 Novocherkassk     2,000 to each       18356/06 10/04/2006 Galina Nikolayevna GANINA 23/11/1946 Nizhniy Novgorod   Igor Aleksandrovich KOCHIN 4,000             29588/06 06/06/2006 Sergey Mikhaylovich KISLOV 01/12/1952 Tver     3,600                 32326/06 17/06/2006 Vladimir Aleksandrovich BOLSHAKOV 20/04/1964 Novocherkassk     1,500               32464/06 12/07/2006 Gennadiy KADYROV 12/05/1957 Deputatskiy     2,300               34333/06 21/07/2006 Viktor Gerasimovich KULIKOV 22/05/1936 Voronezh     3,500               34459/06 14/08/2006 Tatyana Yuryevna GAVRILYUK 24/06/1962 St Petersburg     1,800               37236/06 04/07/2006 Nikolay Petrovich SEMENOV 22/09/1952 Nizhniy Novgorod   Yuriy Fedorovich RYCHKOV 3,000               40611/06 25/09/2006 Yelena Nikiforovna TSVETKOVA 30/05/1948 St Petersburg     2,200               45755/06 29/09/2006 Vladimir Vasilyevich DANCHENKO 14/04/1963 St Petersburg     3,500               46730/06 29/09/2006 Nina Pavlovna PLOTNIKOVA 15/03/1939 Birsk   Nurmukhamet Mukhametdinovich GILYAZETDINOV 3,200               49366/06 17/10/2006 Raisa Filippovna TYULINA 29/06/1924 St Petersburg     3,000               50105/06 19/02/2003 Tatyana Gennadyevna BRAGINA 02/08/1941 Yekaterinburg   Anna Valentinovna DEMENEVA 3,000               1652/07 14/11/2006 Varvara Ivanovna YAKOVLEVA 05/12/1926 Kolpino     1,200               2603/07 10/11/2006 Svetlana Shaydiyarovna DIVAYEVA 16/01/1956 Tuymazy     1,500               7344/07 07/02/2007 Aleksandr Andreyevich LOPATIN 21/01/1952 Tula     2,000             18312/07 12/04/2007 Aleksey Yevgenyevich KARLOV 12/10/1955 St Petersburg     4,200             44713/08 23/06/2008 Natalya Ivanovna SHERENESHEVA 31/07/1943 Moscow   2,500