CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 mars 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s3CC4D07E { font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4D25DC87 { width:18.1pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s747CA81F { width:26.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F0F31D { width:27.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5F22C909 { width:27.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s614A38E2 { width:25.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA05C7F8E { width:101.64%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s22D75D7A { height:23.45pt } .s16BA3FBF { width:10.2%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s264C07A8 { width:14.1%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s96ACE9A7 { width:6.82%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s881EEE2B { width:7.26%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9FC93769 { width:15.46%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEC8FEF90 { width:11.2%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A4431BF { width:8.48%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE4225D7A { height:21.95pt } .sDF50F2AA { width:9.74%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD2C1A480 { width:9.82%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E4AA578 { width:6.9%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBAC07889 { width:10.2%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC2AD0AA7 { width:14.1%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE529DA52 { width:6.82%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8997B1CD { width:7.26%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s912CF69F { width:15.46%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF15DF270 { width:11.2%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E3D5016 { width:8.48%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s21B2F57D { width:10.2%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62034EA7 { width:14.1%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE1F7FE65 { width:6.82%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s63DC804A { width:9.74%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6EFA228F { width:9.82%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDD1A77BB { width:6.9%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7EA37A84 { width:7.26%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E18EEE3 { width:15.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8129923A { width:11.2%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7DA8A722 { width:8.48%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)83 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Ryabykh group (113 cases) against Russian Federation   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 March 2017 at the 1280 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases (see Appendix 1) and to the violations established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having noted that the just satisfaction, where awarded, has been paid by the government of the respondent State;   Noting with satisfaction the measures adopted by the Russian authorities to resolve the problem of the violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing of final judicial decisions by way of supervisory-review proceedings in civil matters (“nadzor”) (see Appendix 2);   Taking also into consideration the Court’s judgments delivered after the adoption of the various legislative reforms, in which the Court examined the conformity of the new supervisory-review procedure with the European Convention;   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Appendix 1   List of cases     Application     Case   Judgment of   Final on 52854/99 RYABYKH 24/07/2003 03/12/2003 11227/05 ABDULLAYEV 11/02/2010 11/05/2010 39897/02 AGASARYAN 20/11/2008 20/02/2009 2993/03 AKALINSKIY 07/06/2007 07/09/2007 51380/07 ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV 12/03/2009 12/06/2009 32991/05 ANDREYEV 04/03/2010 04/06/2010 63973/00 ANDROSOV 06/10/2005 15/02/2006 44142/05 ASMAYEV 14/03/2013 14/03/2013 24130/04+ BARANOV AND OTHERS 09/02/2016 09/02/2016 17472/04 BODROV 12/02/2009 12/05/2009 30671/03 BORIS VASILYEV 15/02/2007 15/05/2007 42234/04 BORODKIN 17/09/2009 17/12/2009 14853/03 BORSHCHEVSKIY 21/09/2006 12/02/2007 62866/00 BOYCHENKO AND GERSHKOVICH 28/06/2007 28/09/2007 23795/02 CHEBOTAREV 22/06/2006 22/09/2006 30714/03 CHEKUSHKIN 15/02/2007 15/05/2007 5964/02 CHERNITSYN 06/04/2006 13/09/2006 30686/03 DANILCHENKO 15/02/2007 15/05/2007 7182/03+ DAVLETKHANOV AND OTHER “CHERNOBYL PENSIONERS” 23/09/2010 23/12/2010 18967/07 DAVYDOV 30/10/2014 30/01/2015 3244/04 DEMENTYEV 06/11/2008 06/02/2009 27101/04 DMITRIYEVA 03/04/2008 29/09/2008 18451/04 DOLBIN 19/04/2016 19/04/2016 2999/03 DOVGUCHITS 07/06/2007 07/09/2007 7319/05+ EYDELMAN AND OTHER “EMIGRANT PENSIONERS” 04/11/2010 04/02/2011 12157/06 GARAGULYA 20/05/2010 20/08/2010 30674/03 GAVRILENKO 15/02/2007 15/05/2007 20430/04 GLADYSHEV AND OTHERS 07/02/2008 07/05/2008 42974/07 GORFUNKEL 19/09/2013 19/12/2013 30777/03 GREBENCHENKO 15/02/2007 15/05/2007 13173/03 GUDKOV 22/12/2009 22/03/2010 20023/07 GULYAYEV 12/05/2010 12/08/2010 10277/05 IGNATYEVA 03/04/2008 22/12/2009 03/07/2008 22/03/2010 1752/02 IRINA FEDOTOVA 19/10/2006 19/01/2007 11697/05 IVANOVA 24/04/2008 24/07/2008 19136/04 KALINICHENKO 12/03/2009 12/06/2009 32185/02 KAYKHANIDI 10/10/2013 10/10/2013 14290/03+ KAZAKEVICH AND 9 OTHER “ARMY PENSIONERS” CASES 14/01/2010 14/04/2010 42538/02 KAZMIN 13/01/2011 20/06/2011 2173/04 KHANUSTARANOV 28/05/2014 28/05/2014 27114/04 KHOTULEVA 30/07/2009 06/11/2009 38597/04 KIRILENKO 05/04/2011 05/04/2011 11785/02 KLIMENKO 18/01/2007 18/04/2007 30709/03 KLIMENKO AND OSTAPENKO 23/07/2009 23/10/2009 22419/05+ KLIMOVA AND OTHERS 08/12/2015 08/12/2015 30685/03 KNYAZHICHENKO 15/02/2007 15/05/2007 30711/03 KOBERNIK 11/06/2015 11/06/2015 25965/03 KOKSHAROVA 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 75473/01 KONDRASHOVA 16/11/2006 16/02/2007 24178/05 KOROVINA 25/02/2010 25/05/2010 20887/03 KOT 18/01/2007 18/04/2007 36299/03+ KOVALENKO AND OTHERS 08/12/2015 08/12/2015 34615/02 KRAVCHENKO 02/04/2009 02/07/2009 7306/07+ KRAYNOVA AND KRAYNOV AND 9 OTHER “YAKUT PENSIONERS” 17/12/2009 17/03/2010 14390/05 KUCHEROV AND FROLOVA 11/02/2010 11/05/2010 36495/02 KURINNYY 12/06/2008 12/09/2008 68029/01 KUTEPOV AND ANIKEYENKO 25/10/2005 15/02/2006 12100/05+ KUZMIN AND OTHERS 14/06/2016 14/06/2016 15242/04 KUZMINA 02/04/2009 02/07/2009 16076/06+ LENCHENKOV AND OTHERS 21/10/2010 21/02/2011 3548/04 LUCHKINA 10/04/2008 10/07/2008 42981/06 MALIKOV AND OSHCHEPKOV 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 22156/04 MIKHAYLOV 22/10/2009 22/01/2010 5941/06+ MISHURA AND GAYEVA 29/10/2015 29/10/2015 3447/05+ MOLODYKA AND OTHERS 23/07/2009 23/10/2009 7944/05 MORDACHEV 25/02/2010 25/05/2010 26338/06 MURTAZIN 27/03/2008 27/06/2008 45017/04 NEKHOROSHEV 10/04/2008 10/07/2008 14502/04 NELYUBIN 02/11/2006 26/03/2007 3447/06 NIKOLAY ZAYTSEV 18/02/2010 18/05/2010 38103/04 NIKOLENKO 26/03/2009 26/06/2009 9549/05 PANASENKO 01/04/2010 01/07/2010 44543/04 PAROLOV 14/06/2007 30/01/2008 7061/02 PETROV 21/12/2006 21/03/2007 4874/03 PITELIN AND OTHERS 14/06/2007 14/09/2007 24247/04 PRISYAZHNIKOVA AND DOLGOPOLOV 28/09/2006 28/12/2006 30422/03 PSHENICHNYY 14/02/2008 07/07/2008 31799/08+ PUGACH AND OTHERS 04/11/2010 04/02/2011 60974/00 ROSELTRANS 21/07/2005 21/10/2005 15037/05 SAKHAROVA 02/05/2013 02/05/2013 47388/06 SAMAROV 28/05/2014 28/05/2014 32865/06+ SENCHENKO AND OTHERS AND 35 OTHER “YAKUT PENSIONERS” CASES 28/05/2009 06/11/2009 30731/03 SEPTA 15/02/2007 15/05/2007 12793/02 SEREGINA 30/11/2006 28/02/2007 1861/05 SERGEY PETROV 10/05/2007 10/08/2007 28309/03+ SERGEYEV AND OTHERS 06/03/2012 06/03/2012 21834/05 SHANOVY 07/02/2012 07/02/2012 34248/05+ SHAPKIN AND OTHERS 15/03/2016 15/03/2016 40713/04 SHCHUROV 29/03/2011 29/06/2011 7873/09+ SHEYMAN 26/06/2016 26/06/2016 2982/05+ SHURYGINA AND OTHERS 15/03/2016 15/03/2016 55531/00 SITKOV 18/01/2007 18/04/2007 38585/04+ SIZINTSEVA AND OTHERS 08/04/2010 08/07/2010 73203/01 SMARYGIN 01/12/2005 01/03/2006 30672/03+ SOBELIN AND OTHERS 03/05/2007 03/08/2007 8564/02 STANISLAS VOLKOV 15/03/2007 15/06/2007 878/03 STETSENKO AND STETSENKO 05/10/2006 05/01/2007 8269/02 SUTYAZHNIK 23/07/2009 10/12/2009 24559/04 TALYSHEVA 22/12/2009 22/03/2010 11093/07+ TARNOPOLSKAYA AND OTHERS 09/07/2009 28/06/2010 4596/02 TAYANKO 02/09/2010 02/12/2010 22551/06 TKACHEV 11/12/2008 11/03/2009 43327/02 TSAREVA 01/04/2010 01/07/2010 66543/01 VASILYEV 13/10/2005 12/04/2006 48758/99 VOLKOVA 05/04/2005 05/07/2005 44381/04 VOTINTSEVA 11/02/2010 11/05/2010 43166/04 YAKOVLEVA 10/07/2014 10/07/2014 21594/05 YELISEYEV 28/05/2014 28/05/2014 69341/01 YURIY ROMANOV 25/10/2005 15/02/2006 23333/05 ZALEVSKAYA 11/02/2010 28/06/2010 67051/01 ZASURTSEV 27/04/2006 27/07/2006 14805/02 ZELENKEVICH AND OTHERS 20/06/2013 20/06/2013 25448/06 ZVEZDIN 14/06/2007 14/09/2007 Appendix 2   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the Ryabykh group of cases against Russian Federation   I.   CASE DESCRIPTION   The Ryabykh group (113 cases) concerns the violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing of final judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour by way of the supervisory-review procedure (“nadzor”) provided for by the Code of Civil Proceedings (Article 6   §   1) and the violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), in various regions of the Russian Federation before 2012.   In the cases concerning events prior to 2003, the European Court found the violations on account of the quashing of final and binding judicial decisions by a higher court via supervisory-review on an application made by a State official whose power to lodge such an application was not subject to any time-limit.   In the cases concerning events after 2003, the Court found that, although limited to only the parties in the case and subjected to a one-year time-limit, the supervisory-review procedure remained an extraordinary means of reopening proceedings, as the time-limit introduced was rendered nugatory in practice by the existence of multiple levels of review and the maintaining, at each level, of the court presidents’ unfettered powers to reopen the case even after that time-limit had expired. Further, the Court criticised the procedural deficiencies, such as the failure to exhaust the ordinary avenues of appeal.   In 20 of these cases, the Court also found other violations, as follows: violation of Article 6   §   1 on account of the excessive length of civil proceedings (this issue is being examined in the Kormacheva group of cases); violation of Article 6   §   1 on account of the delays in the enforcement of judicial decisions concerning the State’s monetary obligations (this issue is being examined in the Timofeyev group of cases); and violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of final judicial decisions regarding pension rights on the basis of newly discovered circumstances (this issue is being examined in the Pravednaya group of cases).   II.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   In all cases in which the European Court granted a just satisfaction, the relevant amounts (including default interest) have been paid (see Appendix 3). In eight cases there were short and insignificant delays in the payment of just satisfaction. The amounts of interest in these cases are very low and to date the applicants have neither objected to the delay in the payment nor requested the payment of interest.   Further, it is important to note that in all the cases in which the applicants made well-grounded claims for pecuniary damage in respect of the sums which they had legitimately expected to receive before the final judgments in their favour were quashed, the European Court awarded it. As regards claims in respect of future pecuniary loss in cases which concerned regular payments by the State, the European Court held that it could not restore the power of the quashed judicial decisions nor assume the role of the national authorities in awarding social benefits for the future ( Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russian Federation, Nos. 11093/07 and seq., §   51, 7 July 2009; Streltsov and Others v. Russian Federation, Nos. 8549/06 and seq., §   91, 29 July 2010; Baturlova v. Russian Federation, No. 33188/08, §   61, 19 April 2011). In addition, the Court did not examine the legal soundness of the judicial decisions subsequently quashed. In this situation, while it has been open to the applicants to request a re-opening of the domestic proceedings and restoration of the power of the quashed judicial decisions, such reopening does not appear to be required.   For the same reasons, a re-opening of the domestic proceedings is also not required in the cases which additionally concern the recalculation of pension rights since the European Court granted the pecuniary claims where lodged by the applicants (see the case description).   As to the cases concerning excessively lengthy civil proceedings, it appears from the relevant judgments of the European Court that the proceedings had already been terminated when the European Court issued its judgments.   The cases concerning lengthy non-enforcement of the domestic judicial decisions concerned monetary awards against the State. In those cases in which the domestic judicial decision had not been enforced prior to the quashing, or where the applicant had to pay back the money following the quashing, the European Court either ordered the enforcement of the domestic judicial decision at issue or awarded the applicants the relevant amounts by way of pecuniary damages. In all the cases in which the European Court ordered the enforcement of the domestic judicial decisions, these decisions have been enforced. In the other cases, the domestic judicial decisions can be considered enforced via the payment of the just satisfaction.   Against the above background, no further individual measures are required in this group of cases.   III.   GENERAL MEASURES   A.   Interim resolution of the Committee of Ministers   Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)1 concerning violations of the principle of legal certainty through the supervisory-review procedure (“nadzor”) in civil matters in the Russian Federation, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 February 2006, reads, in its relevant parts, as follows:   “The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention [..];   Welcoming the reforms of the supervisory review (“nadzor”) procedure introduced by the new Code of Civil Procedure entered into force on 1 February 2003;   Noting with satisfaction, in particular, that some of the problems at the basis of the violations found in these cases have thus been remedied [..];   Stressing that a binding and enforceable judgment should be only altered in exceptional circumstances, while under the current “nadzor” procedure such a judgment may be quashed for any material or procedural violation;   Emphasising that in an efficient judicial system, errors and shortcomings in court decisions should primarily be addressed through ordinary appeal and/or cassation proceedings before the judgment becomes binding and enforceable, thus avoiding the subsequent risk of frustrating parties’ right to rely on binding judicial decisions;   Considering therefore that restricting the supervisory review of binding and enforceable judgments to exceptional circumstances must go hand-in-hand with improvement of the court structure and of the quality of justice, so as to limit the need for correcting judicial errors currently achieved through the “nadzor” procedure [..];   CALLS UPON the Russian authorities to give priority to the reform of civil procedure with a view to ensuring full respect for the principle of legal certainty established in the Convention, as interpreted by the Court’s judgments;   ENCOURAGES the authorities to ensure through this reform that judicial errors are corrected in the course of the ordinary appeal and/or cassation proceedings before judgments become final [..];   ENCOURAGES the authorities, pending the adoption of this comprehensive reform, to consider adoption of interim measures limiting as far as possible the risk of new violations of the Convention of the same kind, and in particular:   -   continue to restrict progressively the use of the “nadzor” procedure, in particular through stricter time-limits for nadzor applications and limitation of permissible grounds for this procedure so as to encompass only the most serious violations of the law [..];   -   to limit as much as possible the number of successive applications for supervisory review that may be lodged in the same case;   -   to discourage frivolous and abusive applications for supervisory review which amount to a further disguised appeal motivated by a disagreement with the assessment made by the lower courts within their competences and in accordance with the law;   -   to adopt measures inducing the parties adequately to use, as much as possible, the presently available cassation appeal to ensure rectification of judicial errors before judgments become final and enforceable;”.     B.   Position of the Constitutional Court   In a judgment of 5 February 2007 (No. 2-П), the Constitutional Court found that the supervisory-review procedure governed by the Code of Civil Proceedings at the material time gave rise to a number of issues with regard to the principle of legal certainty enshrined in the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court. The court explicitly refrained from declaring these shortcomings unconstitutional to avoid a procedural vacuum that would undermine the effective administration of justice. It upheld nonetheless the obligation of the legislator to reform the supervisory-review procedure so as to make it compatible with the principle of legal certainty, taking account of the case law of the European Court and the Committee of Ministers’ Resolution ResDH(2006)1 of 8 February 2006.   C.   Legislative reforms   Since the Ryabykh judgment, the supervisory-review procedure has been reformed on three occasions, in 2003, 2008 and 2012. Following the 2003 and 2008 reforms, only the parties to the proceedings could initiate a supervisory-review. Such initiatives could be made only within a certain time-limit and only after the available regular avenues of appeal had been exhausted. The time-limit could be waived (restored) only in exceptional circumstances and only if such circumstances arose within one year of the contested judgment’s becoming binding.   The subsequent reform of 2012 converted the first two (of three) levels of supervisory review (namely the presidia of the regional courts and the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court) into cassation procedures, while limiting the supervisory-review procedure to the Presidium of the Supreme Court (the former third level of supervisory-review).   D.   Position of the Supreme Court   On 12 February 2008, the legislative reform was supplemented by a decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court (Decree no. 2) in which it provided guidelines to the lower courts, with a special emphasis on the need to comply with Convention requirements and in particular with the principle of legal certainty.   E.   Publication and dissemination   The government undertook various publication and dissemination measures to ensure that various State authorities are aware of the Convention standards concerning the principle of legal certainty. The relevant judgments of the European Court were disseminated, in particular to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the regional courts of the respective regions. The judgments were also translated and published.   F.   Assessment by the European Court   The question whether the supervisory-review procedure in force prior to 2008 violated the principle of legal certainty was considered by the European Court in a number of judgments in this group of cases. In these judgments, the European Court presumed that the quashing of final judgments via such a procedure violated the principle of legal certainty unless such quashing stemmed from a fundamental defect in the prior proceedings (see, among many others, Kot v. Russian Federation, No.   20887/03, §   29, 18 January 2007). Accordingly, in a few judgments the Court found no violation because the presumption was rebutted by the findings of “fundamental defects” in the proceedings before the lower courts, such as a failure to notify the defendant of the proceedings (see, for example, Tishkevich v. Russian Federation, No. 2202/05, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 06/04/2009).   The question whether the supervisory-review procedure in force between 2008 and 2012 violated the principle of legal certainty in specific cases was considered by the European Court in the judgment of Trapeznikov and Others v. Russian Federation (No. 5623/09, judgment of 05/04/2016, final on 05/07/2016).   The European Court found that in the cases at issue the supervisory-review had been initiated by the parties to the proceedings, within the defined time-limit, and only after the available regular avenues of appeal had been exhausted, which was sufficient to conclude that “the supervisory review as applied in the particular circumstances of these cases was not incompatible with the principle of legal certainty” (§§   36, 37). The European Court additionally observed that, in these particular cases, the supervisory-review had been necessary to correct grave mistakes and to ensure a uniform application of the domestic case law (§   38).   G.   Statistics   The 2012 reform limiting the supervisory-review procedure to the Presidium of the Supreme Court has entailed that the supervisory-review procedure is now very seldom used in civil cases. Thus, in 2013, one case was examined on the merits using this procedure, with no cases examined in 2014 and two cases in 2015.   H.   Other violations found   The general measures in response to the other violations found by the European Court in these cases are examined within the context of the relevant groups, as indicated in the case description (see above).   IV.   CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT STATE   The Convention requirements concerning the principle of legal certainty, as interpreted by the European Court, have been incorporated in the reformed legislation. In particular, the supervisory-review procedure can now only be initiated by the parties to the proceedings, within a well-defined time-limit and only after the regular avenues of appeal had been exhausted. In addition, the supervisory-review procedure has been limited to the Presidium of the Supreme Court. It is expected that these legislative reforms, correctly implemented as clarified by the Supreme Court, will prevent further violations of the principle of legal certainty.   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, and will prevent similar violations and that the Russian Federation has, therefore, complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   Appendix 3: List of payment of just satisfaction and of internal debt   No. Case Judgment final on Sums awarded by the Court (in EUR, unless specified otherwise) Payment deadline Date of payment of the sums awarded by the Court Payment of default interest Payment of internal debt, as ordered by the Court Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses 11227/05 ABDULLAYEV 11/05/2010 - - - 11/08/2010 - - - 39897/02 AGASARYAN 20/02/2009 750,00 2 000,00 - 20/05/2009 15/04/2009 - - 2993/03 AKALINSKIY 07/09/2007 - 1 500,00 - 07/12/2007 06/12/2007 - - 51380/07 ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV 12/06/2009 5 100,00 2 000,00 250,00 12/09/2009 11/09/2009 - - 32991/05 ANDREYEV 04/06/2010 1 470,00 1 500,00 142,00 04/09/2010 19/07/2010 - - 63973/00 ANDROSOV 15/02/2006 853,00 1 500,00 50,00 15/05/2006 07/06/2006 Paid - 44142/05 ASMAYEV 14/03/2013 6 795,00 2 000,00   -   19/06/2013 Paid - 24130/04 BARANOV AND OTHERS   95,000 1 783,00 09/05/2016 Between 24/03/2016 and 22/09/2016 to some applicants; 20/04/2016 (date of last invitation to submit bank account details to the heir of Mr Kuzmin); 10/05/2016 (date of last invitation to submit bank account details to the heir of Mr Zaytsev) Paid where required; in some cases n/a (the applicants’ heirs have failed to submit their bank account details to date) - 17472/04 BODROV 12/05/2009 341,00 2 000,00 - 12/08/2009 19/10/2009 n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline) Paid 30671/03 BORIS VASILYEV 15/05/2007 - - - 15/08/2007 - - - 42234/04 BORODKIN 17/12/2009 3 382,00 2 000,00 - 17/03/2010 18/01/2010 - - 14853/03 BORSHCHEVSKIY 12/02/2007 160 600,00 3 000,00 - 12/05/2007 19/04/2007 - - 62866/00 BOYCHENKO AND GERSHKOVICH 28/09/2007 - 4 000,00 - 28/12/2007 05/12/2007 - - 23795/02 CHEBOTAREV 22/09/2006 - 4 500,00 - 22/12/2006 12/12/2006 - - 30714/03 CHEKUSHKIN 15/02/2007 - - - 15/05/2007 - - - 5964/02 CHERNITSYN 13/09/2006 - 2 000,00 200,00 13/12/2006 08/12/2006 - - 30686/03 DANILCHENKO 15/05/2007 - - - 15/08/2007 - - - 7182/03 DAVLETKHANOV AND OTHER “CHERNOBYL PENSIONERS” 23/12/2010 5 060,00 12 000,00 210,00 23/03/2011 07/06/2011 Paid - 18967/07 DAVYDOV 30/01/2015 - 2 000,00 - 30/04/2015 18/03/2015 - - 3244/04 DEMENTYEV 06/02/2009 RUR 200 745,00 2 000,00 RUR 10000,00 06/05/2009 07/05/2009 Not significant (EUR 2.20 not paid) Paid 27101/04 DMITRIYEVA 29/09/2008 4 100,00 3 500,00 -   19/07/2016 - - 18451/04 DOLBIN 19/04/2016 - 5 000,00     23/06/2016 - 2999/03 DOVGUCHITS 07/09/2007 - 2 000,00 - 07/12/2007 13/11/2007 - Paid 7319/05 EYDELMAN AND OTHER ‘EMIGRANT PENSIONERS’ 04/02/2011 26 138,00 36 000,00   - 04/05/2011 16/05/2011 Paid - 12157/06 GARAGULYA 20/08/2010 - 3 000,00 1 000,00 20/11/2010 02/12/2010 Paid - 30674/03 GAVRILENKO 15/05/2007 - - - 15/08/2007 - - - 20430/04 GLADYSHEV and others 07/05/2008 - 4 000,00 - 07/08/2008 04/08/2008 (Mr Gladyshev); 11/09/2008 (Mr Mogilnikov) n/a (Mr Mogilnikov provided his bank account details after the payment deadline) Paid 42974/07 GORFUNKEL 19/12/2013 3 717,00 3 000,00 - 19/03/2014 25/12/2014 Paid - 30777/03 GREBENCHENKO 15/05/2007 - - - 15/08/2007   - - - 13173/03 GUDKOV 22/03/2010 - - - 22/06/2010   - - - 20023/07 GULYAYEV 12/08/2010 - 3 000,00 500,00 12/11/2010 17/11/2010 Paid - 10277/05 IGNATYEVA 03/07/2008, 22/03/2010 3 500,00 3 000,00 - 22/06/2010 14/07/2010 Paid - 1752/02 IRINA FEDOTOVA 19/01/2007 - 2 000,00 10,00 19/04/2007 30/03/2007 - - 11697/05 IVANOVA 24/07/2008 4 100,00 2 000,00 150,00 24/10/2008 27/11/2008 Not significant (EUR 40.92 not paid) - 19136/04 KALINICHENKO 12/06/2009 7 750,00 2 000,00 240,00 12/09/2009 19/10/2009 Paid Paid 32185/02 KAYKHANIDI 10/10/2013 - 2 000,00 177 10/01/2014 11/12/2013 - - 14290/03 KAZAKEVICH AND 9 OTHER “ARMY PENSIONERS” CASES 14/04/2010 19 225,00 30 000,00 1 375,00 14/07/2010 30/06/2011 Paid - 42538/02 KAZMIN 20/06/2011 225,00 3 000,00 - 20/09/2011 05/10/2011 n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline) - 2173/04 KHANUSTARANOV 28/05/2014 2 274,00 - 3 000,00 28/08/2014 13/08/2014 - - 27114/04 KHOTULEVA 06/11/2009 - 3 000,00 - 06/02/2010 18/03/2010 Paid - 38597/04 KIRILENKO 05/04/2011 1 585,00 3 000,00 350,00 05/07/2011 14/07/2011 Paid - 11785/02 KLIMENKO 18/04/2007 - 500,00 500,00 18/07/2007 03/08/2007 Paid - 30709/03 KLIMENKO AND OSTAPENKO 23/10/2009 - 6 000,00 - 23/01/2010 30/11/2009 - - 22419/05 KLIMOVA and Others 08/12/2015 15 000,00 150,00 08/03/2016 Between 09/03/2016 and 11/03/2016 to some applicants; 21/03/2016 (date of last invitation to submit bank account details to Ms Sevidova) Not significant (EUR 9.04 not paid) in some cases; n/a in the case of Ms Sevidova - 30685/03 KNYAZHICHENKO 15/05/2007 - - - 15/08/2007 - - - 30711/03 KOBERNIK 11/06/2015 1 370,00 2 000,00 - 11/09/2015 14/08/2015 - - 25965/03 KOKSHAROVA 02/10/2014 - - - 02/01/2015 - - - 75473/01 KONDRASHOVA 16/02/2007 - 500,00 - 16/05/2007 30/03/2007 - - 24178/05 KOROVINA 25/05/2010 - - - 25/08/2010 - - - 20887/03   KOT 18/04/2007 22 000,00 2 000,00 940,00 18/07/2007 27/07/2007 Paid - 36299/03 KOVALENKO AND OTHERS 08/12/2015 25 000,00 RUR 8 150,00 08/03/2016 31/03/2016 Paid - 34615/02 KRAVCHENKO 02/07/2009 - 2 000,00 - 02/10/2009 19/10/2009 Paid Paid 7306/07 KRAYNOVA AND KRAYNOV AND 9 OTHER “YAKUT PENSIONERS” 17/03/2010 48,000 17/06/2010 15/07/2010 Paid - 14390/05 KUCHEROV AND FROLOVA 11/05/2010 3 335,00 6 000,00 2 770,00 11/08/2010 19/07/2010 - - 36495/02 KURINNYY 12/09/2008 - - - 12/12/2008 - - - 68029/01 KUTEPOV AND ANIKEYENKO 15/02/2006 - - - 15/05/2006 - - - 12100/05 KUZMIN AND OTHERS 14/06/2016 - 1 500,00 600,00 14/09/2016 16/09/2016 (Mr Prokopyev); 10/10/2016 (Mr Kuzmin -date of last invitation to the applicant to submit his bank account details) Not significant in the case of Mr Prokopyev (EUR 1.04 not paid); n/a in the case of Mr Kuzmin - 15242/04 KUZMINA 02/07/2009 5 890,00 2 000,00 240,00 02/10/2009 19/10/2009 Not significant (EUR 17.99 and RUR 767.79 not paid) Paid 16076/06 LENCHENKOV AND OTHERS 21/02/2011 2 821,00 12 000,00 - 21/05/2011 16/05/2011 - - 3548/04 LUCHKINA 10/07/2008 160,00 2 000,00 2 051,20 10/10/2008 10/11/2008 n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline) - 42981/06 MALIKOV AND OSHCHEPKOV 12/11/2015 - 4 000,00 - 12/02/2016 04/03/2016 Paid - 22156/04 MIKHAYLOV 22/01/2010 - 3 500,00 - 22/04/2010 22/03/2010 - - 5941/06 MISHURA AND GAYEVA 29/10/2015 49 215,00 4 000,00 GBP 1 342,00 29/01/2016 17/03/2016 (Ms Gayeva); 05/04/2016 (Mr Mishura -date of last invitation to the applicant to submit his bank account details) N/a (the applicants either submitted their bank account details after the payment deadline or have failed to submit them) - 3447/05 MOLODYKA 23/10/2009 - - - 23/01/2010   - - - 7944/05 MORDACHEV 25/05/2010 4 640,00 3 000,00 68,00 25/08/2010 19/07/2010 - - 26338/06 MURTAZIN 27/06/2008 7 300,00 4 700,00 - 27/09/2008 04/09/2008 - - 45017/04 NEKHOROSHEV 10/07/2008 950,00 - - 10/10/2008 02/10/2008 - - 14502/04 NELYUBIN 26/03/2007 RUR 145 836,00 - - 26/06/2007 13/07/2007 Paid - 3447/06 Nikolay ZAYTSEV 18/05/2010 - 2 000,00 8,00 18/08/2010 19/07/2010 - - 38103/04 NIKOLENKO 26/06/2009 - 3 000,00 1 500,00 26/09/2009 11/09/2009 - - 9549/05 PANASENKO 01/07/2010 - 3 000,00 - 01/10/2010 22/10/2010 Paid - 44543/04 PAROLOV 30/01/2008 - 2 000,00 - 30/04/2008 19/03/2008 - - 7061/02 PETROV 21/03/2007 - - - 21/06/2007   - - - 4874/03 PITELIN AND OTHERS 14/09/2007 - 8 000,00 - 14/12/2007 31/10/2007 - - 24247/04 PRISYAZHNIKOVA AND DOLGOPOLOV 28/12/2006 - 4 800,00 - 28/03/2007 20/02/2007 - - 30422/03 PSHENICHNYY 07/07/2008 8 443,00 2 000,00 - 07/10/2008 22/07/2008 - - 31799/08 PUGACH AND OTHERS 04/02/2011 - 24 000,00 - 04/05/2011 16/05/2011 Paid - 60974/00 ROSELTRANS 21/10/2005 - - - 21/01/2006   - - - 52854/99 RYABYKH 03/12/2003 - - - 03/03/2004   - - - 15037/05 SAKHAROVA 02/05/2013 - - - 02/08/2013   - - - 47388/06 SAMAROV 28/05/2014 - 2 000,00 - 28/08/2014 27/07/2014 - - 32865/06 SENCHENKO AND OTHERS AND 35 OTHER “YAKUT PENSIONERS” CASES 06/11/2009 178,000 06/02/2010 Between 16/12/2009 and 21/12/2009 to some applicants; 18/03/2010 (Mr Kim); 19/07/2010 (Ms Ananyeva) Paid where required; n/a in the case of Ms   Ananyeva (the applicant submitted her bank account details after the payment deadline) - 30731/03 SEPTA 15/05/2007 - - - 15/08/2007 - - - 12793/02 SEREGINA 28/02/2007 70 000,00 1 400,00 300,00 28/05/2007 11/05/2007 - - 1861/05 SERGEY PETROV 10/08/2007 2 500,00 2 000,00 - 10/11/2007 19/11/2007 Not significant (EUR 9.04 not paid) - 28309/03 SERGEYEV AND OTHERS 06/03/2012 255 206,00 36 000,00 1 737,00 06/06/2012 01/10/2012 Paid - 21834/05 SHANOVY 07/02/2012 4 750,00 3 000,00 100,00 07/05/2012 30/05/2012 Paid - 34248/05 SHAPKIN AND OTHERS 15/03/2016 5 000,00 15/06/2016 01/06/2016 (Mr Kulnev -date of last invitation to the applicant to submit his bank account details) - - 40713/04 SHCHUROV 29/06/2011 - 3 000,00 - 29/09/2011 05/09/2011 - - 7873/09 SHEYMAN 21/06/2016 36 337,00 6 000,00 - 21/09/2016 28/09/2016 Not significant (EUR 7.59 not paid) - 2982/05 SHURYGINA AND OTHERS 15/03/2016 10 000,00 - 15/06/2016 Between 21/09/2016 and 22/09/2016 Paid - 55531/00 SITKOV 18/04/2007 - -   - 18/07/2007 16/07/2007 - - 38585/04 SIZINTSEVA 08/07/2010 16 891,00 15 000,00 99,00 08/10/2010 22/10/2010 Paid - 73203/01 SMARYGIN 01/03/2006 - - 1 000,00 01/06/2006 18/05/2006 - - 30672/03 SOBELIN AND OTHERS 03/08/2007 - - - 03/11/2007 - - - 8564/02 STANISLAV VOLKOV 15/06/2007 - - 2 000,00 15/09/2007 10/09/2007 - - 878/03 STETSENKO 05/01/2007 1 700,00 4 000,00 185,00 05/04/2007 30/03/2007 - - 8269/02 SUTYAZHNIK 10/12/2009 - 500,00 - 10/03/2010 25/03/2010 Not significant (EUR 0.98 not paid) - 24559/04 TALYSHEVA 22/03/2010 - 3 000,00 - 22/06/2010 24/01/2011 n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline) - 11093/07 TARNOPOLSKAYA 28/06/2010 102 828,00 - 60 000,00 28/09/2010 17/11/2010 Paid - 4596/02 TAYANKO 02/12/2010 2 328,00 3 000,00 300,00 02/03/2011 07/06/2011 Paid - 22551/06 TKACHEV 11/03/2009 - 3 000,00 - 11/06/2009 01/06/2009 - - 43327/02 TSAREVA 01/07/2010 - 3 000,00 - 01/10/2010 22/10/2010 Paid - 66543/01 VASILYEV 12/04/2006 230,00 500,00 - 12/07/2006 06/06/2006 - - 48758/99 VOLKOVA 05/07/2005 - 3 000,00 744,00 05/10/2005 01/09/2005 - - 44381/04 VOTINTSEVA 11/05/2010 - 3 000,00 - 11/08/2010 15/09/2010 Paid - 43166/04 YAKOVLEVA 10/07/2014 - 2 000,00 - 10/10/2014 07/10/2015 - - 21594/05 YELISEYEV 28/05/2014 - 2 000,00 - 28/08/2014 17/12/2014 n/a (the applicant provided his bank account details after the payment deadline) - 69341/01 Yuriy ROMANOV 15/02/2006 160,00 500,00 - 15/05/2006 02/05/2006 - - 23333/05 ZALEVSKAYA 28/06/2010 - 3 000,00 484,47 28/09/2010 15/09/2010 - - 67051/01 ZASURTSEV 27/07/2006 - - RUR 23,280 27/10/2006 23/10/2006 - - 14805/02 ZELENKEVICH AND OTHERS 20/06/2013 - - - 20/09/2013   - - - 25448/06 ZVEZDIN 14/09/2007 - 4 300,00 - 14/12/2007 07/11/2007 - -