European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Irina Pavlovna RAZMAKHNINA v Russia - 3567/08 [2010] ECHR 1682 (30 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1682.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1682
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
3567/08
by Irina Pavlovna RAZMAKHNINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and André
Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 January 2008,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Irina Pavlovna Razmakhnina, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Aginskiy, the Aginskiy Buryatskiy Autonomous Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matuyshkin, their Representative at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Initial proceedings
On 4 July 2007 the Aginskiy District Court of the Aginskiy Buryatskiy Autonomous Region awarded the applicant 200,400 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Regional Government. The judgment entered into force on 20 August 2007 and was executed in full on 27 March 2008.
B. Settlement at domestic level
On 21 March 2008 the applicant sued the authorities for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the delayed enforcement.
On 16 December 2008 the applicant and the Government of the Aginskiy Buryatskiy Autonomous Region concluded a friendly settlement agreement. Under the agreement the Regional Government undertook to present the applicant their apologies for delayed enforcement and pay the applicant RUB 19,103 in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB 5,000 in respect of legal costs and expenses, that is RUB 24,103. It was further stipulated that the applicant accepted the apologies and revoked her claim for non-pecuniary damage.
On the same date the Aginskiy District Court approved the friendly settlement agreement and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the applicant's claim for damages. As it transpires form a copy of the bank transfer details submitted by the Government, on 22 December 2008 the amount of RUB 24,103 had been credited to the applicant's bank account.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-execution of the judgment in her favour.
THE LAW
On 6 May 2010 the Government informed the Court that on 16 December 2008 the local authorities had reached friendly settlement with the applicant and suggested that the application was to be struck off the list under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The applicant was invited to submit her comments by 15 June 2010. To date she has not replied.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties at domestic level. The amount stipulated therein was reasonable as to quantum and it was paid to the applicant without undue delay. The Court further observes that the judgment of 4 July 2007 was enforced in full within less than one year from the date of its entry into force. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the matter was resolved at the domestic level, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see Sarkisyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 20812/03, 2 March 2006).
Moreover, the applicant was advised that she was to submit comments on the Government's observations. However, she did not reply. The Court infers therefrom that she does not intend to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, in similar context, Dubova v. Russia (dec.), no. 3559/04, 3 July 2008).
Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it at present to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy
Registrar President
