BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Svetlana Mikhaylovna KALININA and Others v Russia - 43727/07 [2010] ECHR 1545 (23 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1545.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1545 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
43727/07
by Svetlana Mikhaylovna KALININA and Others
against
Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 February 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants in the present case are twenty-nine Russian nationals who were born on various dates specified below and live in Velikiye Luki, the Pskov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are 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 court for payment of special allowance for purchase of books for school teachers. On 4 July 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 34th Court Circuit of Velikie Luki of the Pskov Region held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay various amounts in the form of lump sums to be upgraded in line with the inflation in the country. This judgment became binding on 9 September 2003 and was executed in April-May 2004, the latest payment having been made on 13 May 2004.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under various Convention Articles about the delayed enforcement of the judgments and submitted that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgments by domestic means proved ineffective.
The applicants also made accessory complaints under assorted Articles of the Convention.
THE LAW
By letter dated 15 May 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the known address of the applicants' contact person in the above case. No reply followed.
The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant died and no member of her family or heir has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in her stead.
The Court considers with reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in so far as it concerns the claims by Mrs R.V. Gudovskaya. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list in so far as it concerns the claims by Mrs R.V. Gudovskaya.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further notes that the domestic awards in favour of all applicants had been executed.
Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the application in so far as it concerns the claims by the above applicants, of the Court's list of cases.
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.”
The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the loss of victim status, the full enforcement of the judgments, and the reasonableness of the periods of enforcement. They submitted that the above four applicants had also revoked their applications before the Court and invited the Court to strike their complaints out of the list.
The applicants maintained their complaints.
The Court first observes that the file does not contain any evidence that the above applicants intended to revoke their complaints before the Court. There is accordingly no basis for striking their claims out of the list. The Court further considers that it is not necessary to examine the questions of domestic remedies and victim status, because the applicants' complaint is in any event inadmissible as follows.
An unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III). However, the judgment in favour of the four applicants was executed in May 2004, that is within ten months from the date of its entry into force. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that this period complied with the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009).
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
4. Mses Talimyaye, O.G. Senatova, Latysheva and Yastrebinskaya further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgment by domestic means proved ineffective. This Article reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible because the applicants did have at their disposal several effective remedies. The applicants maintained their complaint.
The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in the terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found above that the applicants' complaint about the delayed enforcement is manifestly ill-founded, Article 13 has no application in the present case (see Belkin (dec.), cited above).
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
5. Mses Talimyaye, O.G. Senatova, Latysheva and Yastrebinskaya also made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles of the Convention.
However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases, in so far as it concerns the complaints by Mses Gudovskaya, Kalinina, Rakhmanova, Bogacheva, Sheremetyeva, Iodko, Dunaikina, Ignatenkova, Shtokman, Syrkovskaya, Petrova, V.I. Senatova, Yermachkova, Levina, Bogdanova, Suslova, Negina, Kapustina, Grekova, Kumacheva, Vasyutskaya, Zagnetova, Bondarenko and Messrs Kurochkin and Ivanov;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
ANNEX
Information about the applicants and judgments in their favour
|
|
Applicant's name, year of birth |
Claim withdrawn on (if applicable) |
|
|
Svetlana Mikhaylovna Kalinina, 1958 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Nina Leonidovna Rakhmanova, 1957 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Valentina Aleksandrovna Bogacheva, 1960 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Galina Mikhaylovna Sheremetyeva, 1954 |
28/03/2008 |
|
|
Tatyana Viktorovna Iodko, 1962 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Yelena Nikolayevna Dunaikina, 1960 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Natalya Semenovna Ignatenkova, 1955 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Svetlana Anatolyevna Shtokman, 1957 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Yevgeniy Yevgenyeveich Kurochkin, 1957 |
13/03/2008 |
|
|
Nina Mikhaylovna Syrkovskaya, 1941 |
17/03/2008 |
|
|
Yuliya Nikolaevna Petrova, 1972 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Liyli Yuloyevna Talimyaye, 1973 |
- |
|
|
Valentina Ivanovna Senatova, 1947 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Rosa Vasilyevna Gudovskaya, 1937 |
- |
|
|
Oksana Grigoryevna Senatova, 1972 |
- |
|
|
Anna Viktorovna Yermachkova, 1977 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Natalya Aleksandrovna Levina, 1973 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Ludmila Vasilyevna Bogdanova, 1938 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Olga Konstantinovna Suslova, 1964 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Yevgeniya Yegorovna Latysheva, 1940 |
- |
|
|
Margarita Alekseyevna Negina, 1935 |
14/03/2008 |
|
|
Lyudmila Arkadyevna Kapustina, 1956 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Vera Nikandrovna Grekova, 1937 |
17/03/2008 |
|
|
Yevegeniya Nikolaevna Kumacheva, 1955 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Larisa Mechislavovna Vasyutskaya, 1975 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Tatyana Alekseyevna Zagnetova, 1963 |
12/03/2008 |
|
|
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Ivanov, 1957 |
17/03/2008 |
|
|
Vera Fedorovna Bondarenko, 1943 |
13/03/2008 |
|
|
Olga Valeryevna Yastrebinskaya, 1973 |
- |