CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sA7CAEB5D { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 26285/06 Konstantin Anatolyevich MITIN against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   January 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, 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 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. 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 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 The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. Some applicants also made accessory complaints under various Articles of the Convention. THE LAW Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them. By letters of different dates (see the Appendix) the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues of delayed enforcement. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. They stated their readiness to pay the sums listed in the Appendix as just satisfaction to the applicants. The remainder of the declarations provided as follows: “The Government 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 set out in the Appendix], 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 and will be converted into the national currency of the Russian Federation at the rate applicable at the date of payment. [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 periods plus three percentage points. [These payments] will constitute the final resolution of [the cases].” The applicants either did not provide any comments on the unilateral declarations, or disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Some applicants insisted on the examination of their applications on the merits. The Court reiterates 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. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued. Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention 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 applications”. 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.” To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law. The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of the judgments in the applicants’ favour has been acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensation amounts offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia , of the specific enforcement delays in each particular case. Insofar as several applicants contest the execution modalities, 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 and 15   others, 5 February 2009, and Sirotin v.   Russia   (dec.), no.   38712/03, 14   September 2006). 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 applications, it notes that in a number of analogous cases the Court found that it was not required to continue the examination the applications in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine (see Mikheyeva and Others v.   Russia (dec.), no. 36933/07 and 6 others, 24 March 2015, and Sultanova and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 16200/07 and 11 others, 15 April 2014). The Court does not see any reason to depart from that approach in the present cases. In view of the above, in so far as the complaints about the delayed enforcement of the judgements in the applicants’ favour are concerned, it is appropriate to strike that part of the applications out of the list in accordance with Article 37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. 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; Decides to strike the part of the applications concerning the complaints about the delayed enforcement out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Representative Final domestic decision details and amounts awarded in Russian roubles (RUB) Enforcement date Enforcement delay Date of unilateral declaration Remedial offer in euros   26285/06 01/06/2006 Konstantin Anatolyevich MITIN 14/07/1981 Moscow   Represented by: Aleksandr Vladimirovich MOLOKHOV   On 19 March 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan ordered the provision of a municipal housing to an orphan, which was replaced by the monetary compensation RUB   518,686.69 on 22   April 2005. The judgment entered into force on 30   March 2004.   06/05/2006   2 years 1   month 6 days 08/09/2015   2,062   42567/06 07/09/2006 Khidirnabi Yakhyayevich SHABANOV 18/02/1955 Makhachkala   On 18 July 2005 the Military Court of the Makhachkala Garrison awarded the applicant certain payments for military service. The judgment entered into force on 28   September 2005 and amended on 28   November 2006.   04/12/2006   1 year 2   months 6   days 09/09/2015   664   39006/08 11/06/2008 Ivan Aleksandrovich ANUFRIYEV 12/07/1983 Arkhonskaya   On 26 August 2004 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison awarded the applicant compensation for participation in military conflict. The judgment entered into force on 7   September 2004.   26/10/2011   7 years 1   month 19   days 23/01/2014   4,498   49721/08 18/08/2008 Mariya Ivanovna NIKITINA 09/08/1954 Gremyachinsk   On 12 February 2008 the Gremyachinskiy Town Court of the Perm Region awarded the applicant RUB 2,578,500 in compensation for a flat acquisition. The judgment came into force on 15   April 2008.   15/02/2010   1 year 10   months 09/09/2015   1,159   24953/14 21/06/2007 Nikolay Nikolayevich LAPOTNIKOV 24/05/1979 Orekhovo-Zuyevo   On 29 January 2004 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison awarded the applicant certain payments for military service. The judgment came into force on 10   February 2004.   30/07/2010   6 years 5   months 20   days 09/09/2015   3,625