European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sergey Yuryevich LINKOV v Russia - 48508/06 [2010] ECHR 2121 (14 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2121.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2121
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
48508/06
by Sergey Yuryevich LINKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou, judges,
and
Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2006,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure (Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia, no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...),
Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike this application out of its list of cases and the applicant's response to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Sergey Yuryevich Linkov, a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Orenburg. He acted pro se before the Court. 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.
On 15 October 2004 the Justice of Peace for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Orenburg allowed the applicant's claims against a federal state institution, his former employer. He was awarded in total 226,945.78 Russian roubles (then approximately 6,308 euros (EUR), now approximately EUR 5,323). Those judgments were not appealed against and became final and enforceable on 26 October 2004.
On 16 May 2005 and 11 August 2006 the court bailiffs returned the writs of execution due to impossibility to have the judgments in the applicant's favour enforced.
Meanwhile, on 25 July 2005 the applicant lodged another claim against his former employer which was dismissed in the final instance on 8 June 2006 by the Moscow City Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments in his favour.
The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about excessive length of proceedings upon his claim lodged on 25 July 2005.
THE LAW
“The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 [Convention]. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it 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”.
In a letter of 20 October 2010 the applicant agreed with the sum proposed in the Government's declaration.
The Court reiterates that under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention it is empowered 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”.
The Court recalls that it ordered the Russian Federation to grant redress 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 15 January 2009 (Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 144-145).
Having examined the terms of the Government's declaration, the Court understands it as intending to give the applicant redress in line with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment.
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the enforcement of the final judgments of 15 October 2004 in the applicant's favour is acknowledged by the Government. It also notes that the compensation offered is comparable with Court awards in similar cases.
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application; it is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue the examination of the present complaint (see Sobol and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 11373/03 et al., 24 June 2010).
Accordingly, in so far as the complaint about delayed enforcement of the judgments of 15 October 2004 in the applicant's favour is concerned, the application should be struck out of the Court's list of cases.
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 § 2 of the Convention within the context of supervision over enforcement of the pilot 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 its list of cases (see Sobol and Others, cited above).
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The proceedings in question commenced on 25 July 2005 and terminated on 8 June 2006, therefore, it took less than a year to consider and dismiss the applicant's claim. In view of the Court's case-law and in absence of any specific circumstances, this period does not appear unreasonable (see Sultanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 59344/00, 18 January 2005, Ivashchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23728/03, 24 March 2009, and Aleksey Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010). 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as the complaint about delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments in the applicant's favour is concerned;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
