CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 juillet 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC295E44D { border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s312D6D70 { height:47.25pt } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom: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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sA8740776 { height:56.6pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE74C84FB { width:20.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFC916575 { height:35.65pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 43028/09 Anna Kuzminichna KOLOBUTINA and Others against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 July 2018 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 application lodged on 23 May 2009, Having regard to the rectified declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 18   October 2017 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to that declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE Two lists of the applicants are set out in the appended tables. In particular, Mr Kolobutin lodged complaints on his own behalf and on behalf of his late mother, Ms Kolobutina (see line 1 of Appendix I below). Ms   Moroz lodged complaints on her own behalf and on behalf of her late relative, Ms Markova (see line 5 of Appendix I below). The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The applicants complained, among other matters, about the delayed enforcement of the judgments of the Zelenogradskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region of 25   May 2004 and of 20   July 2004 ordering the domestic authorities to allot a land plot to each of them. The applicants also complained about the lack of the effective remedies in respect of the non ‑ enforcement complaint. As four initial claimants in the domestic proceedings died, on various dates in 2009 the Zelenogradskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region declared Mr   Kolobutin, Mr Vlasov, Mr Toskuyev, and Ms   Moroz as legal successors in respect of the initial judgment debts in the domestic enforcement proceedings initiated pursuant to the above two judgments. On 18   October 2017 the Government submitted their rectified unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. In their declarations they acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments of 25   May 2004 and of 20   July 2004. The unilateral declarations further contained the dates of each judgment, their entry into force and their full enforcement, as well as the overall enforcement delays. The authorities stated their readiness to pay to each applicant 4,000   euros as just satisfaction. The payments were to cover any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay the sums within the said period, the Government undertook 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. The payments would constitute the final resolution of the case. They further requested the Court to strike out the application. In their letters received on the dates indicated in Appendix I, some of the applicants or their legal heirs informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. Some of the applicants (see Appendix II) did not submit their comments on the unilateral declarations. THE LAW A.     Locus standi The Court notes that Ms Kolobutina and Ms Markova died before the date of lodging of the present application (see Appendix I). The Court notes that a deceased person cannot, even through a representative, lodge an application with the Court (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, §§ 96 and 102, ECHR 2014). The Court does not discern any exceptional circumstances in the present case to depart from this approach. Therefore, the application in the part concerning Ms Kolobutina and Ms   Markova is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and the Additional Protocols and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. On the other hand, and as a matter of clarification, the Court notes that Mr Kolobutin and Ms Moroz entered the domestic enforcement proceedings as Ms Kolobutina’s and Ms Markova’s legal heirs, respectively, in respect of the judgment debts, which was acknowledged by the domestic decisions to that effect. Their standing as Ms   Kolobutina’s and Ms Markova’s legal successors in the domestic enforcement proceedings concerning the initial judgment debt transferred to them as a matter of legal succession has never been disputed either by the domestic authorities or the Government. Accordingly, the Court will examine the complaints lodged by Mr   Kolobutin and Ms   Moroz in so far as their own claims in respect of the judgment debt inherited from their late relatives are concerned. The Court further takes note of Ms   Vlasova’s death and of the wish of her legal heir, Mr   Vlasov, to pursue the proceedings in her stead. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; and Horváthová v.   Slovakia , no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005). Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v.   the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). It follows from the submitted documents that the domestic courts admitted Mr   Vlasov in the enforcement proceedings in the capacity of creditor instead of his deceased relative. The Government did not contend that Mr   Vlasov had no standing to pursue the application. Therefore, the Court considers that Mr Vlasov has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in Ms   Vlasova’s stead. B.     Complaints about the delayed enforcement 1.     In respect of the applicants who agreed to the terms of the unilateral declarations The Court attaches particular weight to the express agreement by applicants or their legal heirs listed in Appendix I to the terms of the declarations made by the Government. It finds that such agreement shall be considered as a friendly settlement between the parties (see   Cēsnieks v.   Latvia   (dec.), no.   9278/06, §   34, 6   March 2012, and Bakal and Others v.   Turkey   (dec.), no.   8243/08, 5   June 2012). The Court therefore takes formal note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Court further considers that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article   37   §   1 in fine of the Convention and Rule   62   §   3 of the Rules of Court). In any event the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the execution of the terms of the friendly settlement as set out in the present decision (Article   39   §   4 of the Convention and Rule   43   §   3 of the Rules of Court). Further, 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 its list of cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention in so far as it concerns the applicants who had agreed to the terms of the unilateral declarations (listed in Appendix I). The Court considers that the amounts proposed by the Government should be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment. 2.     In respect of the applicants who did not comment on the terms of the unilateral declarations In respect of the applicants who did not comment on the Government’s declarations (see Appendix II), 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 application 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 delay in this particular case. 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 application, 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.), nos. 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, it is appropriate to strike that part of the application out of the list in accordance with Article 37 §   1   (c) of the Convention in so far as the non-enforcement complaint is concerned. The Court considers that the amounts proposed by the Government should be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment. C.     Complaint about the lack of the domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaints Some applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaint. The Government did not specify their position in relation to this complaint. The Court has previously found that it was not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article   13 in other similar cases (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 35555/05 and 6 others, 2   May 2017, §§ 33-37). In these circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the complaints in the name of Ms Kolobutina and Ms   Markova inadmissible; Decides that Mr   Vlasov has standing to continue the proceedings in his late relative’s stead, as specified in Appendix I; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article   39 of the Convention in so far as it concerns the applicants listed in Appendix I who had agreed to the terms of the unilateral declarations; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in the part concerning the applicants listed in Appendix II, and in so far as their non-enforcement complaint was concerned; Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article   13 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 26 July 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President Appendix I   No. Applicant Date of birth – Date if demise Legal heir Enforcement date Enforcement delay Date of receipt by the Court of the acceptance to the terms of the unilateral declaration   Anna Kuzminichna KOLOBUTINA 10/07/1933 – 01/12/2007 n/a (see the Law part on Locus Standi)   Aleksandr Failovich KOLOBUTIN 15/05/1966   Legal heir of Anna Kuzminichna KOLOBUTINA in respect of the initial judgment debt 07/12/2012 8 years 5   months 7 days 05/12/2017   Lyudmila Vasilyevna KUZYAKINA 08/02/1951 07/12/2012 8 years 6   months 08/12/2017   Natalya Mikhaylovna ZHOKHOVA 27/07/1954 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 11/12/2017   Tamara Andreyevna TOCHILKINA 10/04/1957 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 11/12/2017   Ulyana Konstantinovna MARKOVA 26/07/1933 – 23/03/2009 n/a (see the Law part on Locus Standi)   Larisa Mironovna MOROZ 01/09/1956   Legal heir of Ulyana Konstantinovna MARKOVA in respect of the initial judgment debt 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 08/12/2017   Valentina Georgiyevna STREKACH 02/05/1943 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 08/12/2017   Nina Vilisovna IVANOVA 21/09/1959 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 11/12/2017             Yelena Nikolayevna GRIGORENKO 14/07/1966 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 19/01/2018             Yelena Alekseyevna NENASHEVA 08/05/1967 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 07/12/2017             Yelena Nikolayevna SMURYGINA 04/08/1967 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 18/12/2017             Nadezhda Dmitriyevna KRAVCHENKO 18/03/1944 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 11/12/2017             Valentina Gavrilovna VLASOVA n/a   Legal heir: Mikhail Ivanovich VLASOV 23/11/1939 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 11/12/2017             Nikolay Andreyevich GUMENYUK 12/08/1942 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 08/12/2017             Yelena Yuryevna SOLOPCHUK 24/12/1964 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 08/12/2017             Valentina Ivanovna TOKAREVA 09/04/1939 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months 20/02/2018   APPENDIX II   No. Applicant Date of birth Legal heir Enforcement date Enforcement delay                 Svetlana Nikolayevna SEMCHUK 22/11/1949 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months                 Irina Stepanovna NECHAY 19/02/1939 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months                 Aleksandra Dmitriyevna ROMANOVA 10/11/1928 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months                 Lidiya Stepanovna ZHIGALINA 11/02/1923 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months                 Yelena Petrovna SHENETS 08/04/1966 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months                 Valentin Lazarevich TOSKUYEV [1] 06/10/1946 07/12/2012 8 years 6 months   [1] .     Mr Toskuyev entered the enforcement proceedings in respect of the initial judgment debt as a legal successor of Svetlana Anatolyevna Toskuyeva, who died on an unspecified date before September 2009.