CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s330D47D5 { width:214.44pt; 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s6674DD39 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 7977/09 Rais Mavlyutovich ZAYNULLIN against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Helen Keller, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the Appendix, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The facts relating to all applications The applicants were parties to civil proceedings that took place in courts of ordinary jurisdiction or commercial courts in various regions of Russia. The disputes concerned various civil matters such as housing, labour, property and monetary issues. The proceedings ended on the dates set out in the Appendix. On 22 April 2010 the applications were communicated to the Government. 2.     The facts relating to application no. 11301/09 On 4 November 2010 the applicant applied to the Volgograd Regional Court for compensation under the Compensation Act (see part B below). On 16 November 2010 the Volgograd Regional Court refused to accept the case for consideration on the ground that the application did not contain some of the information required by Article 244.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such as, details about judicial decisions in the case, names of domestic courts, the subject matter of the case or information about the grounds for initiating criminal proceedings; the total length of proceedings; information about what caused the delays; the applicant’s arguments; and the amount of compensation claimed. The court set a time-limit for the applicant to bring the application in line with the legal requirements. The court further warned the applicant that in case of failure to do so the application would be returned to him. On 26 November 2010 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of Russia about the decision to return the application. The applicant argued that an extract from the Government’s Memorandum submitted to the Court in Strasbourg had been attached to the application for compensation. Thus, the required information could be found there. On 11 January 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint explaining that it was obligatory to include the information required by Article 244.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure into the application lodged under the Compensation Act. On 14 February 2011 the Volgograd Regional Court returned the application to the applicant due to the failure to eliminate the shortcomings pointed out by the decision of 16 November 2010. B.     Relevant domestic law On 30 April 2010 the Russian Parliament adopted a Federal Law no.   68 ‑ FZ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”). On the same date the Parliament adopted a Federal Law, no. 69-FZ, introducing a number of corresponding changes to the relevant federal laws. Both laws entered into force on 4 May 2010. All individuals who have complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their right to a trial within a reasonable time or to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time has been violated may claim compensation in domestic courts under the Compensation Act within six months of its entry into force, provided the European Court has not ruled on the admissibility of the complaint (Section 6 § 2). Other relevant provisions of the Compensation Act are summarised in Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (nos. 26716/09 and 2 others, §§   11-16, 23 September 2010). Chapter 22.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in force at the material time, established the procedure for examining applications under the Compensation Act. Its Article   244.3 listed the requirements for such applications. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained, inter alia , about the excessive length of the civil proceedings. Some of them also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Given that these nine applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single decision. B.     Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of proceedings Referring to Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the length of civil proceedings in their cases had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement as established in that provision, which provides, in so far as relevant:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” The Government claimed that the applicants had failed to use the new Compensation Act adopted in response to the pilot judgment Burdov v.   Russia (no. 2) (no.   33509/04, ECHR 2009), and available to them since 4   May 2010. The applicants maintained their complaints arguing, inter alia , that they were not required to pursue the new remedy relied on by the Government, because it was introduced after they had lodged their applications with the Court. In most cases, the applicants expressed their doubts about the effectiveness of the new remedy. The Court has previously examined similar cases and has taken the view that, as a matter of principle, it would require that all cases introduced after the pilot judgment Burdov (no. 2) (cited above) and falling under the Compensation Act be submitted in the first place to the national courts ( Fakhretdinov and Others , cited above, §§   24-35). In the decision Fakhretdinov and Others the Court noted that it could exceptionally decide, for the sake of fairness and effectiveness, to conclude its proceedings by a judgment in certain cases of this kind which had remained on its list for a long time or had already reached an advanced stage of proceedings (ibid., §   32). To reach that conclusion, the Court took into account the nature of the rights at stake, the nature of the remedy and the context in which it had been introduced, as follows (see Fakhretdinov and Others , cited above, §§   30 ‑ 31): “31.     ... Once a domestic compensatory remedy has been introduced, it becomes particularly important for such complaints to be considered in the first place and without delay by the national authorities, which are better placed and equipped to establish the relevant facts and to calculate monetary compensation ... Secondly, the Court attaches particular importance to the fact that the applicants were entitled to bring their claims to the domestic courts under the transitional provision of the Compensation Act ... which reflects the Russian authorities; intention to grant redress at the domestic level to those people who had already applied to the Court before the entry into force of the Act ... It reiterates that its task, as defined by Article 19 of the Convention, would not be best achieved by taking such cases to judgment in the place of domestic courts, let alone by considering them in parallel with the domestic proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, E. G. v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 27, 23 September 2008).” The Court considers that the above reasoning fully applies to the nine applications at hand. It does not find any reason to depart from the general approach adopted in Fakhretdinov and Others in the present cases. Like in Fakhretdinov and Others , the Court has no reason to doubt that the applicants were entitled to use the transitional provisions of the Compensation Act, available to them until 4   November 2010. Even though the applicants in the present cases were not informed by the Registry in May 2010 of the new remedy (compare with Fakhretdinov and Others , cited above, § 7), there is nothing to suggest that the applicants had any difficulty to familiarise themselves with the text of the Compensation Act and specifically its transitional provisions – be it in the wake of the Act’s entry into force in May 2010, or on receipt of the Government’s observations sent to them in September 2010, or once the above-cited Fakhretdinov and Others case (ibid.) clarifying the exhaustion requirement was published – and to submit their compensation claims to domestic courts under the transitional provisions within the relevant time-limit, as did, for example, the applicant in application no.   11301/09. Finally, the present cases had remained on the Court’s list for about a year before being communicated in April 2010 (compare, for example, with Khanustaranov v. Russia , no.   2173/04, §§ 30-39, 28   May 2014). It cannot be said that the proceedings in the cases reached an “advanced stage” at the material time (see Fakhretdinov and Others , cited above, §   32), as they were introduced in 2009, and were communicated to the Government a few days before the Compensation Act entered into force. In the view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicants are required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to avail themselves of the new domestic remedy. The Court notes that in case no. 11301/09 the applicant sought compensation for the allegedly excessive length of proceedings under the Compensation Act. However, his application was returned to him on the ground that he had failed to complete it as required by the national law. The Court further notes that it has previously found inadmissible the applications in which the applicants had attempted to use the Compensation Act, but failed to comply with certain formal requirements on lodging a claim for compensation (see, for example, Sorokin v. Russia , no. 67482/10, §§   34-37, 10   October 2013). In case no. 11301/09, the applicant’s claim for compensation was not accepted as it did not contain certain information required by the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant argued that the relevant information could be found in the Memorandum of the Government’s Representative at this Court, attached to the application for compensation. Having appealed against the decision to refuse the application and having received explanation by the domestic courts in this regard, the applicant refused to remedy the situation. There is nothing in the case-file to indicate that there had been any obstacles in the legislative framework or specific circumstances in the case to prevent the applicant from correcting the defects identified by the domestic courts and further pursuing his claims for compensation (see Smagilov v. Russia (dec.), no.   24324/05, §   50, 13   November 2014). In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant in application no. 11301/09 failed to avail himself of the new remedy. In the view of the above and given the fact that other applicants in the present cases did not attempt to use the Compensation Act, the complaints about the length of proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. C.     Other complaints The applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to, in particular, Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols in that part of the applications. It follows that the applications in this part 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; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 4 May 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Helen Keller Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Nature of the proceedings Decision final on   7977/09 17/01/2009 Rais Mavlyutovich ZAYNULLIN 27/08/1941 Almetyevsk     Recovery of the value of shares   11/12/2008   8033/09 17/01/2009 Aleksandr Ivanovich KURMAYEV 22/06/1939 Nizhnyaya Maktama     Recovery of the value of shares   11/12/2008   10317/09 16/01/2009 Nadezhda Aleksandrovna LARIONOVA 10/08/1951 Tver     Determination of title to a room   18/09/2008   11301/09 11/02/2009 Vladimir Valentinovich TYAN 03/05/1962 Novonikolaevskiy   Aleksey Vasilyevich PROKHOROV Pecuniary damage   13/08/2008   13562/09 10/02/2009 Dmitriy Nikolayevich KEZHVATOV 12/12/1990 St Peterburg     Debt recovery   25/09/2008   14526/09 20/01/2009 Marina Vladimirovna SIMKINA 22/12/1980 Omsk   Irina Mihaylovna BLINOVA 08/06/1967 Omsk   Natalya Viktorovna FUR 25/06/1979 Omsk   Svetlana Yuryevna KAMNEVA 27/06/1975 Omsk   Natalya Valeryevna KOSHKINA 19/06/1980 Omsk   Tatyana Mikhaylovna KRAVCHENKO 26/03/1981 Omsk   Olga Valeryevna MOZZHERINA 20/11/1981 Omsk   Marina Nikolayevna TURKEYEVA 20/07/1980 Omsk   Igor Mikhaylovich YEROSHKIN 04/04/1970 Omsk Vladimir Aleksandrovich KONDRATYEV A labour dispute   Unspecified   21995/09 21/01/2009 Anatoliy Nikolayevich TYRYSHKIN 09/03/1957 Nizhniy Novgorod     A succession dispute   05/08/2008   53622/09 29/09/2009 Mariya Ivanovna RYBNIKOVA 05/08/1937 Vladivostok   Tatyana Yuryevna KAREVA Unauthorized construction   30/03/2009     57777/09 10/08/2009 Valentina Ivanovna GOLESHCHIKHINA 09/12/1959 Kargasok   Anatoliy Nikolayevich FOKIN Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage   17/02/2009