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 WampachDeputy 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
1. As regards the claims by Mrs R.V. Gudovskaya, the Court observes that on 6 May 2008 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, in which they informed the Court that the above applicant had died on 26 February 2007.
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 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 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.
2. The Court further observes that twenty-four applicants (Mses 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) informed the Court that they wanted to withdraw the applications.
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.

3. 
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. 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. 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 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
	Registrar	President

ANNEX

Information about the applicants and judgments in their favour

	Applicant's name, year of birth	Claim withdrawn on (if applicable)	
1.		Svetlana Mikhaylovna Kalinina, 1958	12/03/2008	
2.		Nina Leonidovna Rakhmanova, 1957	12/03/2008	
3.		Valentina Aleksandrovna Bogacheva, 1960	12/03/2008	
4.		Galina Mikhaylovna Sheremetyeva, 1954	28/03/2008	
5.		Tatyana Viktorovna Iodko, 1962	12/03/2008	
6.		Yelena Nikolayevna Dunaikina, 1960	12/03/2008	
7.		Natalya Semenovna Ignatenkova, 1955	12/03/2008	
8.		Svetlana Anatolyevna Shtokman, 1957	12/03/2008	
9.		Yevgeniy Yevgenyeveich Kurochkin, 1957	13/03/2008	
10.		Nina Mikhaylovna Syrkovskaya, 1941	17/03/2008	
11.		Yuliya Nikolaevna Petrova, 1972	12/03/2008	
12.		Liyli Yuloyevna Talimyaye, 1973	-	
13.		Valentina Ivanovna Senatova, 1947	12/03/2008	
14.		Rosa Vasilyevna Gudovskaya, 1937	-	
15.		Oksana Grigoryevna Senatova, 1972	-	
16.		Anna Viktorovna Yermachkova, 1977	12/03/2008	
17.		Natalya Aleksandrovna Levina, 1973	12/03/2008	
18.		Ludmila Vasilyevna Bogdanova, 1938	12/03/2008	
19.		Olga Konstantinovna Suslova, 1964	12/03/2008	
20.		Yevgeniya Yegorovna Latysheva, 1940	-	
21.		Margarita Alekseyevna Negina, 1935	14/03/2008	
22.		Lyudmila Arkadyevna Kapustina, 1956	12/03/2008	
23.		Vera Nikandrovna Grekova, 1937	17/03/2008	
24.		Yevegeniya Nikolaevna Kumacheva, 1955	12/03/2008	
25.		Larisa Mechislavovna Vasyutskaya, 1975	12/03/2008	
26.		Tatyana Alekseyevna Zagnetova, 1963	12/03/2008	
27.		Aleksandr Vladimirovich Ivanov, 1957	17/03/2008	
28.		Vera Fedorovna Bondarenko, 1943	13/03/2008	
29.		Olga Valeryevna Yastrebinskaya, 1973	-