CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mars 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8F016750 { width:131.63pt; display:inline-block } .sA149F1D5 { width:182.32pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB47A2EB9 { height:132.85pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s35C486C8 { height:138pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sBDFD88E { height:67.45pt } .s8E79D88E { height:66.95pt } .sCA464627 { height:68.7pt } .sC40D88E { height:67.55pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 36933/07 Svetlana Arsentyevna MIKHEYEVA against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24   March 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 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 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 these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are all Russian nationals. Their details appear in the appendix. Mr G. S. Syromyatnikov was represented by E. N. Farzaliyev, a lawyer practising in Vladikavkaz. Mr G. V. Obodenko was represented by R.   V.   Stupakova, a lawyer practising in Krasnodar. 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 have obtained court decisions awarding them monetary sums against the State, as detailed in the appendix. Those decisions in the applicants’ favour became final and enforceable but the State delayed their enforcement. All applications were lodged with the Court before 15   January   2009, the date of the delivery of the pilot judgment ( Burdov (no.   2) , cited above). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. 2.     The applicants also made accessory complaints under various 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. 2.     In line with the Burdov ( no.   2 ) pilot judgment, cited above, the Government informed the Court that the domestic court decisions in the applicants’ favour had been enforced and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issue of delayed enforcement. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums listed in the appendix in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 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 [declarations] might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the [cases] 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 either did not provide any comments on the unilateral declarations, or disagreed on various grounds, considering insufficiency of the compensation amounts, incorrect calculation of outstanding amounts or failure of the State to propose indexation of awarded amounts in comparison with the inflation rate in the country. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of 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 (point   7 of the operative part) 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 (point 8 of the operative part): “... 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 the judgments in the applicants’ favour is explicitly acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the domestic judgment debts were paid to the applicants and that the compensations offered by the Government for non-pecuniary damage 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). Insofar as several applicants contest the execution modalities, non ‑ indexation of judgment debts or correctness of the calculation of due amounts by the State authorities, the Court reiterates that such grievances must be first and foremost submitted to domestic courts, which are better placed than the Court to ascertain the compliance with the Russian law in this area, including the methods of calculation of the compensations and specific index ‑ linking requirements provided therein (see Belkin and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos.   14330/07 et al., 5   February   2009, and Sirotin v.   Russia   (dec.), no. 38712/03, 14 September 2006). The applicant in case no. 36933/07 claimed the expenses incurred at the proceedings before the Court. The Court notes that the relevant claimed sum do not make the Government’s proposal inconsistent with the sum which would be awarded by the Court in similar cases. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications, nor is it required by respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list. As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings raised by certain applicants, 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)158 concerning the implementation of the Burdov ( no.   2 ) judgment, cited above). 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 and 175 other Bug River applications (dec.), nos.   50425/99 et al., §   29, ECHR 2008 (extracts)). 3.     As for the applicants’ accessory complaints referring to various Articles of the Convention, 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 these parts of the applications 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; 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 part of the applications concerning the applicants’ complaint about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications marked with an asterisk in the appendix inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 April 2015. André Wampach   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Final domestic decision details and amounts awarded in Russian roubles (RUB) Delay in enforcement Unilateral remedial offer (euros)   36933/07* 12/08/2007 Svetlana Arsentyevna MIKHEYEVA 06/10/1940 Kostroma   The Dimitrovskiy District Court made the following awards to the applicant:   1) RUB 16,910.22 as compensation for lost of the bread-winner by judgment of 14 August 2006. The judgment came into force on 4 October 2006 and was enforced on 6 August 2008;   2) RUB 1,017,106.45 arrears for the compensation since 1998 by judgment of 12 December 2006. The judgment came into force on 21 February 2007 and was enforced on 16 October 2008. 2 years and 12   days 1,284   40448/07* 19/07/2007 Igor Stanislavovich YEVSEYEV 20/01/1955 Syktyvkar   The applicant was awarded social benefits due to participation in liquidation of the Chernobyl disaster by the judgments of the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi:   1) RUB 74,526.72 by judgment of 27 January 2006, entered into force on 10 February 2006, and enforced on 24 April 2014;   2) RUB 251,598.61 by judgment of 14 February 2006, entered into force on 7 March 2006 and enforced on 24 April 2014;   3) RUB 56,878.19 by judgment of 27 July 2006, entered into force on 11 August 2006 and enforced on 3 December 2007. 8 years 2   months and 14   days 6,000   8528/08* 16/11/2007 Georgiy Svyatoslavovich SYROMYATNIKOV 20/05/1978 Vladikavkaz   On 6 April 2004 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison awarded to the applicant compensation for participation in military conflict. The amount to be calculated by the defendant authority. The judgment entered into force on 17 April 2004 and was enforced on 16 September 2010. 6 years and 5   months 4,045   12537/08* 19/02/2008 Zurab Sulikoyevich KOZAYEV 25/05/1976 Ardon   On 12 May 2005 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison awarded to the applicant compensation for participation in military conflict. The amount to be calculated by the defendant authority. The judgment entered into force on 24 May 2005 and was enforced on 18 September 2014. 9 years 3   months and 25 days 5,877   56631/08 18/09/2008 Rashid Akhatovich KAMALIYEV 26/09/1955 Shumikhinskiy   On 20 December 2007 the Gremyachinskiy Town Court of the Perm Region awarded to the applicant RUB 1,476,900 as housing subsidy for workers of coal producing organizations that are liquidated. The judgment entered into force on 15 May 2008 and was enforced on 23 March 2010. 1 year 10   months and 8 days 1,040   59832/08 04/11/2008 Lyubov Yevgenyevna BELOVA 01/01/1959 Neryungri   On 28 July 2003 the Neryungrinskiy Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) awarded to the applicant RUB   124,850.82 for damage and RUB 7,000 for expenses. The judgment entered into force on 27 August 2003 and was enforced on 3 June 2008. 4 years 9   months and 7 days 2,674   8918/09* 09/01/2009 Gennadiy Vladimirovich OBODENKO 04/07/1978 Grazhdanskiy On 12 May 2005 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison awarded to the applicant compensation for participation in military conflict. The amount to be calculated by the defendant authority. The judgment entered into force on 24 May 2005 and was enforced on 22 September 2010. 5 years 3   months and 29 days 3,362