CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 janvier 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8FC5AFFD { margin-left:28.07pt; margin-bottom:6pt; padding-left:7.63pt; font-family:serif } .s95F128C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.07pt; margin-bottom:6pt; padding-left:7.63pt; font-family:serif } .sE49E43D8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   24 15.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)   The Court adopts its first pilot judgment concerning Russia on the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a pilot judgment adopted by a Chamber [1] in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (application no. 33509/04) (This press release is also available in Russian and French; the judgment is available only in English ).   Since 2004 and in response to the large number of cases deriving from systemic or structural problems in certain countries the Court has developed a pilot-judgment procedure. This consists in identifying in a single judgment systemic problems underlying a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and indicating in that judgment the remedial measures required to resolve such situations. The pilot-judgment procedure is not only intended to facilitate effective implementation by respondent states of individual and general measures necessary to comply with the Court’s judgments, but also induces the respondent State to resolve large numbers of individual cases arising from the same structural problem at domestic level, thus reinforcing the principle of subsidiarity which underpins the Convention system.   In the judgment adopted today the Court held unanimously:   that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention on account of the State’s prolonged failure to enforce three domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the authorities to the applicant; that there had been no violation of Article 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the enforcement of the judgments of 22 May 2007 and 21 August 2007; that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judgments in the applicant’s favour; that the above violations originated in a practice incompatible with the Convention which consists in the State’s recurrent failure to honour judgment debts and in respect of which aggrieved parties have no effective domestic remedy; that the respondent State must set up, within six months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article   44 § 2, an effective domestic remedy or combination of such remedies which secures adequate and sufficient redress for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments in line with the Convention principles as established in the Court’s case-law; that the respondent State must grant such redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a judgment debt in their favour who lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications were communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2(b) of the Rules of the Court; and, that pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court will adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the proceedings in all new cases concerning solely the non-enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the State authorities, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 (striking out of a case) or   39 (finding of a friendly settlement).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court considered that the applicant’s distress and frustration were exacerbated by the authorities’ persistent failure to honour their debts under the domestic judgments notwithstanding the first finding of violations by the Court in his case. As a result, the applicant had no choice but again to seek relief through time-consuming international litigation before the Court. The Court accordingly increased the just satisfaction award and granted Mr   Burdov 6,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   *** 1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Tikhonovich Burdov, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Shakhty, in the Rostov region of the Russian Federation.   On 1   October   1986 he was called up by the military authorities to take part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. He was engaged in the operations until 11   January   1987 and, as a result, suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. He is entitled to various social benefits in this connection.   Considering that the competent State authorities failed to pay these benefits in full and in due time, the applicant repeatedly sued them in domestic courts from 1997 onwards. The courts granted the applicant’s claims but a number of their judgments remained unenforced for various periods of time.   In a judgment of 7   May   2002, the European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the authorities’ failure for years to take the necessary measures to comply with these decisions ( Burdov v. Russia , press release no. 250 of 7 May 2002).   In a resolution of 2004 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe indicated that it was satisfied that the Government had paid the applicant the sum of just satisfaction provided for in the judgment of 7 May 2002 within the time-limit imparted. It further noted, in particular, the measures taken in respect of the category of persons in the applicant’s position. Having regard to all the measures adopted, the Committee concluded that it had exercised its functions under Article 46   §   2 of the Convention in this case. It recalled at the same time that the more general problem of non-execution of domestic court decisions in the Russian Federation was being addressed by the authorities, under the Committee’s supervision, in the context of other pending cases.   In the meantime the applicant had obtained further judgments in his favour. The   Shakhty Town Court’s judgment of 17 April 2003 became final on 9 July 2003, but was not fully enforced until 19   August   2005. The same court’s judgment of 4 December 2003 became final on 15 December 2003 but was not fully enforced until 18 October 2006. Another judgment of the   Shakhty Town Court’s, of 24 March 2006, became final on 22 May 2006, but was not fully enforced until 17 August 2007.   Two further judgments of 22   May   2007 and 21   August   2007 were enforced respectively on 5 December 2007 and 3 December 2007.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 July 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article   6 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about the authorities’ failure to comply with judgments delivered by domestic courts in his favour.   Decision of the Court   Article 6   It was not disputed by the parties that the five judgments concerned were fully enforced but with certain delays. The only issue to be decided by the Court was whether these delays violated the Convention.   Having examined the general principles applicable, the Court considered the delays which occurred in the five judgments. With regard to the first three, it reached the conclusion that these delays (two years and one month, two years and ten months and one year and almost three months) were not compatible with the Convention requirements in respect of the enforcement of final judicial decisions and impaired the essence of the applicant’s right to a court. For the last two judgments, the Court found that the delays in enforcing them had not been unreasonable (six and three months).   The Court accordingly concluded that by delaying the execution of the Shakhty Town Court’s judgments of 17 April 2003, 4   December 2003 and 24 March 2006 the authorities had failed to respect the applicant’s right to a court and there had been a violation of Article   6.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Given that the binding and enforceable judgments created an established right to payment in the applicant’s favour, which should be considered as a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, the authorities’ prolonged failure to comply with these judgments also violated the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. There had therefore also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   Article 13   The applicant had not alleged the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about prolonged non-enforcement by the authorities of domestic judgments in his favour. The Court observed nonetheless that alleged ineffectiveness of domestic remedies was being increasingly complained of before it in cases concerning non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments. It therefore decided of its own motion to examine this question under Article 13.   Having examined the different remedies available the Court concluded that there was no effective domestic remedy, either preventive or compensatory, that allowed for adequate and sufficient redress in the event of violations of the Convention on account of prolonged non-enforcement of judicial decisions delivered against the State or its entities. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 13.   Article 46   The Court considered it appropriate to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in this case, given notably the recurrent and persistent nature of the underlying problems, a large number of people affected by them in Russia and the urgent need to grant them speedy and appropriate redress at the domestic level.   In the Court’s view, the important concerns voiced and the findings made by various authorities and institutions at the domestic and international level are consonant with some 200 judgments of the Court highlighting the structural problems at issue. These problems did not affect only Chernobyl victims, as in the present case, but also other large vulnerable groups of the Russian population: non-enforcement very frequently occurred in cases concerning the payment of pensions, child allowances, compensation for damage sustained during military service or compensation for wrongful prosecution.   The Court noted with grave concern that the violations found in the present judgment had occurred several years after its first judgment of 7 May 2002 in the Burdov case, notwithstanding Russia’s obligation under Article   46 to adopt, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, the necessary remedial and preventive measures. Non-compliance with one of the domestic judgments in the applicant’s favour lasted until August 2007, not least because of the competent authorities’ failure to adopt the necessary procedures. At the same time, the Court noted on a positive side various general measures being considered by the Russian authorities, not least the pending bills for introduction of domestic remedies against non-enforcement.   The Court recalled that non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments constituted a recurrent problem in Russia that had led to more than 200 judgments finding violations of the Convention since the first Burdov case in 2002. Approximately 700 cases concerning similar facts were currently pending, in some instances cases which could lead the Court to find a second set of violations as in case under review. The Court held, in the light of its own findings and the other material in its possession, that the breaches found reflected a persistent structural dysfunction and that the situation had to be qualified as a practice incompatible with the Convention.   It noted that the problems at the basis of the violations of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 found required the implementation of comprehensive and complex measures, possibly of a legislative and administrative character, involving various authorities at both federal and local level. The Committee of Ministers was better placed and equipped to monitor the necessary reforms to be adopted by Russia in this respect.   However, the situation was different as regards the violation of Article 13. The Court’s findings clearly called for the setting up of an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies allowing adequate and sufficient redress to be granted to large numbers of people affected by such violations. In these circumstances the Court considered that it should require the respondent State to introduce a remedy which secured genuinely effective redress for the violations of the Convention on account of the State authorities’ prolonged failure to comply with judicial decisions delivered against the State or its entities. Such a remedy should conform to the Convention principles as laid down notably in the judgment in the case before it and be available within six months from the date on which the judgment became final.   The Court in addition decided to adjourn the proceedings on all new applications lodged after the delivery of the present judgment, in which the applicants complained solely of non-enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by State authorities. The adjournment would be effective for a period of one year after the present judgment became final. The applicants in these cases would be informed accordingly.   However, in respect of applications lodged before the delivery of the judgment, the Court took a different line, holding that the respondent State was under an obligation to grant adequate and sufficient redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment became final, to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a domestic judgment debt in their favour. This would apply to all those who had lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the judgment and whose applications were communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2(b) of the Rules of the Court. Pending the adoption of domestic remedial measures by the Russian authorities, the adversarial proceedings in all these cases would be adjourned for one year from the date on which the judgment became final.     The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.