Anatoliy Nikolayevich SOBOL v Russia - 11373/03 [2010] ECHR 1026 (24 June 2010)

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anatoliy Nikolayevich SOBOL v Russia - 11373/03 [2010] ECHR 1026 (24 June 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1026.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1026

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11373/03
by Anatoliy Nikolayevich SOBOL
and 35 other applications
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ...),

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are 81 Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants sued the State authorities in domestic courts for payment of various monetary sums due under the Russian law. The courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay various amounts in the form of lump sums and/or of periodic payments to be upgraded in line with the inflation in the country. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour and, in certain cases, of assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the judicial or enforcement proceedings.

THE LAW

Following the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above the Government informed the Court of the payment of the domestic court awards in the applicants’ favour and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged in various but very similar terms that judgments in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in a timely manner (e.g. “the excessive duration of the enforcement”, “the delay in the enforcement” or “the lengthy enforcement”). They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums tabulated below. The remainder of the declarations read as follows:

“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

The [sums tabulated below], which [are] to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. [They] will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay [these sums] within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

Some applicants agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. Certain others failed to reply. A majority of the applicants disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Several applicants furthermore challenged the modalities of the execution of their judgments at the domestic level and, in particular, alleged inadequate indexation of regular payments in comparison with the inflation rate in the country. Finally, some applicants cast doubts as to whether the Government acknowledged the violations and would comply with their terms once the Court struck the applications out of its list.

The Court reiterates that under Article 37 of the Convention it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under (a), (b), or (c) of that Article.

Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 application.”

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.”

The Court recalls that in its pilot judgment (Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), cited above) it recently ordered the Russian Federation 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 judgment debt in their favour who [had] lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications [had been] communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court.”

In the same judgment the Court also held that

“pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court [would] adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, the proceedings in all 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 or 39 of the Convention.”

Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 127 and 145 and point 7 of the operative part).

The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants’ favour is acknowledged by the Government either explicitly or in substance. The Court also notes that the compensations offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delay(s) in each particular case (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 99 and 154).

Insofar as several applicants contest the execution modalities, the Court reiterates that such grievances must be first and foremost submitted to domestic courts, which are better placed than the Court to ascertain the compliance with the Russian law in this area, including the specific index-linking requirements provided therein (see Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009).

The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications.

Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list.

As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings raised by certain applicants, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention (see the Committee’s decisions of 14-15 September 2009 (CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065) and Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)158 concerning the implementation of the Burdov (no. 2) judgment). 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 applications to the list of cases (see E.G. v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008 ... (extracts)).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations;

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President

ANNEX

	Application no.	Last name	Forename	Born	Compensation offered (euros)
1	11373/03	SOBOL	ANATOLIY NIKOLAYEVICH	1958	2240.00
2	14008/03	RYCHKOV	ALEKSANDR MIKHAYLOVICH	1953	2000.00
3	34929/03	PLYUSHCH	OLEG VYACHESLAVOVICH	1976	680.00
4	35876/03	MOSHKOVSKIY	VADIM FEDOROVICH	1943	1500.00
5	27237/04	ZHILYAKOV	VLADIMIR ALEKSANDROVICH	1947	2000.00
6	29174/04	ISMIYEV	ALEKSANDR MAMEDOVICH	1946	4800.00
7	29936/04	MAZUR	OLEG VASILYEVICH	1966	2000.00
8	32459/04	STOKOLEVA	MARINA VASILYEVNA	1959	3471.00
		BORODINA	NATALYA VIKTOROVNA	1970	4000.00
		REDKINA	LYUBOV VIKTOROVNA	1974	4000.00
		ZHUKOVA	ZINAIDA NIKOLAYEVNA	1952	3468.00
9	33986/04	LISYANSKIY	BORIS GEORGIYEVICH	1946	2200.00
10	36053/04	KIRICHENKO	LYUBOV FEDOROVNA	1957	3700.00
		SUSLOVA	MARIYA DMITRIYEVNA	1956	3200.00
		MINAKOVA	SVETLANA ALEKSANDROVNA	1962	3200.00
11	38750/04	LEPESHKOVA	YEVGENIYA IVANOVNA	1951	3000.00
12	40366/04	PETROV	ALEKSANDR NIKOLAYEVICH	-	1600.00
13	41745/04	ZAKHAROVA	IRINA MAKARYEVNA	1919	3450.00
14	929/04	GLAZKOV	VLADIMIR ANDREYEVICH	1941	1500.00
15	10525/05	KUZIN	YURIY GEORGIYEVICH	1947	1860.00
16	11946/05	KRECHETOV	ALEKSANDR IVANOVICH	1956	1065.00
17	12178/05	CHUDINOV	NIKOLAY MATVEYEVICH	1943	2300.00
18	1862/05	CHERNOV	BORIS KONSTANTINOVICH	1938	4700.00
		CHERNOVA	VALENTINA PETROVNA	1937	3200.00
19	21154/05	FROLETSKAYA	MARINA NIKOLAYEVNA	1961	3800.00
20	30880/05	TARKHOVA	SVETLANA VALENTINOVNA	1956	3800.00
21	40158/05	BORODINA	YELIZAVETA EMANUILOVNA	1947	2600.00
22	10624/06	BORISKINA	VALENTINA ANTONOVNA	1950	1640.00
		ALEKSEYEV	VYACHESLAV VSEVOLODOVICH	1945	1640.00
		BARYSHEVA	MARIYA STEPANOVNA	1943	1640.00
		DUBINKINA	VALENTINA SERGEYEVNA	1952	1640.00
		DYAGOLCHENKO	VIKTOR GRIGORYEVICH	1956	1640.00
		GRIGORYEVA	ANTONINA VASILYEVNA	1930	1640.00
		GURINA	VALENTINA FILIPOVNA	1941	1640.00
		KALOSHIN	VIKTOR VASILYEVICH	1950	1640.00
		KASHIRSKAYA	ANNA VASILYEVNA	1944	1640.00
		KHRAPOV	VITALIY VASILYEVICH	1971	1640.00
		KIZINA	SVETLANA VIKTOROVNA	1976	1640.00
		KOSTINA	ZINAIDA IVANOVNA	1941	1640.00
		KRAVTSOV	ALEKSANDR ALEKSANDROVICH	1964	1640.00
		MILYAYEV	VASILIY TIMOFEYEVICH	1949	1640.00
		MUKHORTOVA	VALENTINA GEORGIYEVNA	1957	1640.00
		PLUZHNIKOVA	LYUDMILA MIKHAYLOVNA	1952	1640.00
		POPOVA	ZINAIDA MIKHAYLOVNA	1966	1640.00
		SAFONOVA	TATYANA NIKOLAYEVNA	1953	1640.00
		SEREBRYANSKAYA	GALINA PAVLOVNA	1946	1640.00
		SHMARINA	IRINA ALEKSEYEVNA	1979	1640.00
		SOKRYUKINA	NADEZHDA ALEKSEYEVNA	1946	1640.00
		YERMAKOVA	GALINA ALEKSEYEVNA	1972	1640.00
		YERMAKOVA	YELENA ALEKSANDROVNA	1958	1640.00
23	26356/06	FILONOV	ALEKSANDR GRIGORYEVICH	1938	2500.00
24	27399/06	ARIPSHEV	ZAMIR ASLANBIYEVICH	1980	4000.00
25	29210/06	OSOVSKIY	NIKOLAY ALEKSANDROVICH	1945	2900.00
26	35448/06	PANKOV	ANDREY VLADIMIROVICH	1977	1050.00
27	40922/06	POPOV	NIKOLAY NIKOLAYEVICH	1953	4000.00
28	4880/06	POTSELUYEV	VALERIY YEVGENYEVICH	1973	1000.00
29	50596/06	VALUYEV	ANATOLIY GRIGORYEVICH	1938	1200.00
30	8422/06	LIKHACHEV	SERGEY PETROVICH	1954	1240.00
31	25179/07	ALBEGOV	GENNADIY NIKOLAYEVICH	1968	1781.00
		AMILOKHANOV	YURIY GUSINOVICH	1958	1691.00
		ATAYEV	VALERIY YURYEVICH	1965	1568.00
		BOTSIYEV	KHETAG SERGEYEVICH	1958	1363.00
		DAVYDOV	GENNADIY VIKTOROVICH	1965	1796.00
		DZHIGKAYEV	OLEG SOSLANOVICH	1960	1796.00
		FEOFANIDI	IORDAN GEORGIYEVICH	1962	1567.00
		GABIYEV	GEORGIY GRAMITONOVICH	1973	1537.00
		GASANOVA	RAISA GEORGIYEVNA	1936	1363.00
		GUDIYEV	KHADZHIMURAT KHETAGOVICH	1964	1625.00
		GUDIYEV	KHASAN KHETAGOVICH	1966	1712.00
		KAIROV	VYACHESLAV BORISOVICH	1968	1370.00
		KAIROV	GEORGIY BORISOVICH	1966	1370.00
		KACHMAZOV	AMIRAN ILYICH	1943	1593.00
		LOLAYEV	ALAN RUSLANOVICH	1967	1442.00
		POPOV	ANTON MIKHAYLOVICH	1972	1915.00
		STEPKIN	ALEKSANDR ANATOLYEVICH	1954	1636.00
		TOKAZOV	MURAT ASLANBEKOVICH	1969	1581.00
32	34605/07	NOSOV	ALEKSANDR ALBERTOVICH	1960	2600.00
33	35725/07	KOMAROV	VASILIY NIKOLAYEVICH	1940	750.00
34	3738/07	LUKIN	BORIS NIKOLAYEVICH	1946	900.00
35	39663/07	MALINOVA	NADEZHDA IVANOVNA	1971	2500.00
36	4109/08	ZHOGIN	ANATOLIY MIKHAYLOVICH	1967	960.00

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1026.html

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anatoliy Nikolayevich SOBOL v Russia - 11373/03 [2010] ECHR 1026 (24 June 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1026.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1026