CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s85187FF { width:10.21pt; display:inline-block } .s13678100 { width:200.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border: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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       THIRD SECTION               CASE OF VOLKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 3249/12 and 6 others – see list appended)                       JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   23 July 2019             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Volkov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 July 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in seven applications (nos.   3249/12, 11204/12, 23589/13, 53686/13, 54020/13, 60850/13 and 48673/14) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ten Russian nationals and one legal entity established in Russia. Their details and the dates of their applications to the Court appear below in Appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     On 18 May 2015 the complaints concerning delayed enforcement as well as insufficiency of compensation for that were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applications nos. 3249/12, 11204/12, 23589/13, 53686/13, 60850/13, 48673/14 were declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54   §   3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The personal details of the applicants appear in the Appendix. 5.     The applicants obtained final court judgments in their favour, according to which different State authorities were ordered to pay them lump sums or monthly payments. The court decisions were not promptly enforced. The applicants sought compensation for delayed enforcement under the Compensation Act. Their claims for compensation were granted and the judgments were fully enforced. The respective information about the judgments in the applicants’ favour and their enforcement, courts decisions concerning the compensation awards and respective sums are indicated in the appended table. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 6.     Federal Law № 68-ФЗ “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” of 30 April 2010 (in force as of 4   May 2010) provides that in case of a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or of the right to enforcement of a final judgment, the Russian citizens are entitled to seek compensation of the non-pecuniary damage. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 8.     The applicants complained that the final judgments in their favour were enforced with significant delays. They further complained about insufficient compensation under the Compensation Act. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which in the relevant parts read as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.” A.     Admissibility 9.     The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 10.     The Government submitted that delayed enforcement of the judgments was a result of the applicants’ own behaviour obstructing payment of the award or the lack of the funds in the regional budgets. Finally they submitted that the applicants had already received compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of delayed enforcement. 11.     The applicants disagreed with the Government’s submissions and maintained their complaints. 12.     The Court reiterates that where a State has taken a significant step by introducing a compensatory remedy, the Court must leave a wider margin of appreciation to the State to allow it to organise the remedy in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and consonant with the standard of living in the country concerned. The Court   has therefore   been prepared to accept that the compensation amounts awarded by domestic courts for violations of the   Convention rights may be somewhat lower than those granted by the Court in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis , Scordino v. Italy (no.   1) [GC], no.   36813/97, § 189, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). In the present case, however, the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts falls far below what the Court awards in comparable situations in respect of non-pecuniary damage. With reference to the Convention criteria as they were set out in the pilot judgment (see Burdov v. Russia (no.   2) , no.   33509/04, §§ 154-57, ECHR 2009), the Court considers that the amounts awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts are unreasonably low, taking into consideration notably the nature of the court award at issue and the extremely long delay in enforcement. 13.     The Court observes that it has already found violation of the Convention on account of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments and insufficient compensation for that under the Compensation Act (see Lavrov v. Russia , no. 33422/03 , §§ 35-39, 17 January 2012). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present cases. 14.     The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with their obligation to promptly enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour. 15.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     Article   41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 17 .     The Court notes at the outset that Ms Gutsulyak (applications nos.   11204/12 and 60850/13) did not submit claims for just satisfaction within the time limits set by the Registry of the Court. Consequently, the Court makes no awards in these two cases. 18.     As regards the other applicants, they submitted, as far as their admissible complaints were concerned, claims in respect of pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage ranging from 4,000 euros (EUR) to EUR   91,400 (see the Appendix). 19.     In all cases, the Government contested the applicants’ methods of calculation as regards pecuniary damage. They further contended that the final judgments were enforced and the applicants did not sustain any pecuniary damage. As for non-pecuniary damage the Government referred to the compensation awarded at the domestic level as being in compliance with the Court’s case law. 20.     The Court notes that the applicants in essence claims the sums awarded by the domestic courts and already paid to them. Given that the final judgments in the applicants’ favour were fully enforced the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. The Court therefore rejects these claims. 21.     As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicants must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the authorities’ failure to duly enforce the judgments in their favour. However, the amount claimed appears excessive. At the same time, the Court considers that the amounts to be awarded under this head should be reduced so as to take account of the compensations already paid to the applicants at the domestic level. 22.     The Court notes that the present cases are similar to numerous other cases that concern the same issues it has already addressed in numerous other judgments finding violations of the Convention on account of the non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of final judgments. In cases involving many similarly situated victims a unified approach may be called for. This approach will ensure that the applicants remain aggregated and that no disparity in the level of the awards will have a divisive effect on them (see, for instance,   Moskalenko and Others v. Ukraine   [Committee], nos.   1270/12   and 249 others, § 23, 18 July 2013). 23.     In these circumstances making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicants amounts indicated in the Appendix in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. B.     Costs and expenses 24.     As indicated above Ms Gutsulyak failed to submit claims for costs and expenses timely (see paragraph 17). In the case of Volkov the applicant submitted no claims whatsoever. Consequently, the Court makes no awards for costs and expenses in these two cases. 25.     In the rest of the cases the applicants claimed different sums ranging from EUR   11.38 to EUR   9,311 for the costs and expenses. 26.     In all cases, save for the Shalayev case, the Government fully contested the amounts claimed as being excessive and/or unsubstantiated. 27.     The Court observes that in the case of Ulutov the applicant did not submit any evidence substantiating his claim for cost and expenses. Nor did he provide calculation with regard to his claim. The Court thus rejects the claim of the applicant in the aforementioned case. 28.     As for the rest of the applicants regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers reasonable to award the sums indicated in the Appendix for the proceedings before the Court. C.     Default interest 29.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and insufficient compensation for that admissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of all applicants;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of all applicants;   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months the amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable, indicated in the Appendix, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months the amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable, indicated in the Appendix, in respect of costs and expenses; (c)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   6.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 July 2019, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar   President       No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality   Represented by Final domestic judgments and awards, a)   date of delivery b)   date of becoming final   Length of enforcement Compensation under the Compensation Act (court, date of delivery, date of becoming final, award) Claims for just satisfaction a)   pecuniary damage b)   non-pecuniary damage c)   costs and expenses Just satisfaction a)   non-pecuniary damage b)   costs and expenses 1 3249/12 20/11/2011 Petr Andreyevich VOLKOV 27/04/1939 Novovoronezh Russian   Svetlana Anatolyevna POZNAKHIRINA Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region 27/01/2005 08/02/2005   On 17/03/2008 the court replaced provision on awarded flat by a monetary award of RUB   1,725,200 11 years (2016) Voronezh Regional Court 26/05/2011   RUB 20,000 (EUR 500) EUR 6,690 EUR 8,000 n/a   EUR   2,000 n/a 2 11204/12 19/01/2012 Alla Ivanovna GUTSULYAK 09/05/1965 Voronezh Russian Voronezh Garrison Military Court 01/12/2004 15/12/2004   RUB   308,509.77 3 years and 9   months (enforced on 24/09/2008) Moscow Circuit Military Court 21/03/2011 09/08/2011   RUB 15,000 (EUR 367) Submitted out of time n/a 3 23589/13 07/03/2013 Olga Leonidovna PAVLOVA 13/08/1954 Tver Russian Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver 19/04/2002 05/08/2003 RUB   1,603.49 monthly payments   RUB 3,888 (after indexation of 06/10/2011) 8 years and 6   months (enforced on 20/02/2012) Tver Regional Court 03/07/2012 20/03/2013   RUB 15,000 (EUR 375)   EUR 10,215 (both for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) RUB 2,850 (EUR 39) EUR   2,000 EUR   39 4 53686/13 29/07/2013 Muratali Mavlimberdyyevich ULUTOV 23/05/1973 Novovladimirovka Russian   Khidirnabi Yakhyayevich SHABANOV Makhachkala Garrison Military Court 29/11/2001 09/12/2001   compensation for military service to be calculated by the military authority 13 years and 8   months (enforced on 21/07/2015) North Caucasus Circuit Military Court 19/09/2011 21/12/2011   RUB   50,000 (EUR 1,195) EUR 26,533 EUR 7,560 EUR 1,000   EUR   2,000 n/a 5 54020/13 08/08/2013 Viktor Timofeyevich SHALAYEV 28/04/1967 Yaroslavl Russian 1)   Yaroslavl Garrison Military Court 25/02/2010 16/03/2010   RUB 1,160.40   2)   Yaroslavl Garrison Military Court 24/05/2011 11/06/2011   RUB 161,414.09 and RUB 8,200 1)   2 years and 4 months (enforced on 27/07/2012)       2)   1 year and 1   month (enforced on 27/07/2012 1)   Moscow Circuit Military Court 20/11/2012 06/09/2013   RUB 1,000 (EUR 23)   2)   Moscow Circuit Military Court 20/11/2012 09/09/2013   RUB 5,000 (EUR 114) EUR 4,000 (non ‑ pecuniary damage) EUR 11,38   EUR   2,000 EUR 11,38 6 60850/13 06/09/2013 Alla Ivanovna GUTSULYAK 09/05/1965 Voronezh Russian Voronezh Garrison Military Court 10/12/2008   RUB   155,094.80 3 years and 6   months (enforced on 11/05/2012) Moscow Circuit Military Court, 18/07/2012   RUB 10,000 (EUR 251) Submitted out of time n/a 7 48673/14 12/05/2014 Aleksandr Anatolyevich KOMOLOV 20/07/1961 Moscow Russian   Vyacheslav Alekseyevich LOSKUTOV Zelenogradskiy Circuit Court of Moscow 28/10/1997 22/04/1998   RUB 6,500,000 14 years and 8   months (enforced on 28/12/2012) Moscow City Court 23/07/2013 12/11/2013   RUB 15,000 (EUR 341) RUB 6,534,167.5 (EUR 76,400) EUR 15,000 EUR 9,311.87 + 10% of the Court’s award for just satisfaction EUR   2,000 EUR   900