[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Svetlana Borisovna ANISIMOVA and Others v Russia - 3215/04 [2010] ECHR 683 (11 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/683.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 683

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

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3215/04
by Svetlana Borisovna ANISIMOVA and Others
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 2004,

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

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are 42 Russian nationals living in the Ivanovo region. Their names and other details appear in the table below. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms I. Sokolova, a lawyer practising in Ivanovo. 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.

In 2002 and 2003 various domestic courts in the Ivanovo region allowed the applicants' civil claims relating to the authorities' failure to pay child allowances and ordered the Central Finance Department of the Ivanovo region to pay the arrears from the regional treasury. The details of the judgments and the amounts awarded in Russian Roubles (RUB) appear in the table below. The judgments became binding and enforceable but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants also complained about the lack of an effective remedy against continued non-enforcement of those judgments.

THE LAW

On 8 February 2010 the Government informed the Court that the judgments in the applicants' favour were executed in full with some delays ranging from one year and five months to two years and eight months. The Government also submitted declarations aimed at resolving the issue raised by the case. They requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. In so far as relevant, the declarations read as follows:

“[T]he Russian authorities acknowledge the lengthy enforcement of the judgment[s] [in the applicants' favour listed below].

The authorities are ready to pay the applicant[s] ex gratia [the sums tabulated below].

The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case 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.”

By letter of 16 March 2010 the applicants agreed to the Government's offer.

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).

Having regard to the acknowledgement contained in the declarations together with the amounts of compensation proposed and taking note of the applicants' agreement with the Government's offers, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Moreover, the Court is 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 application.

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

As regards the question of implementation of the Government's undertakings, 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 application 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President

APPENDIX