European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7354/09
Belan Khamitovich DZEYTOV against Russia
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to that declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are six Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. Mr Dzeytov, the first applicant, was represented before the Court by Mr I. Gandarov, a lawyer practicing in Ingushetiya. Ms Bedoidze, the sixth applicant, was represented by Ms T. Baskayeva, a lawyer practicing in Vladikavkaz. The other applicants 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.

In 2001-2007 the applicants sued the State authorities in domestic courts for payment of various monetary sums due under domestic law. The courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay various amounts. These judgments became binding and the authorities executed them in 2004-2008, that is with a certain delay in the case of each applicant.

In 2008-2009 the applicants lodged proceedings with the domestic courts asking for indexation of the judicial awards due to a delayed execution of the judgments mentioned above. The domestic courts rejected their claims.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants mainly complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about allegedly unlawful refusal by domestic courts to index-link the judicial awards due to a delayed execution of the judgments delivered in their favour.

THE LAW

The applicants maintained that the refusal by domestic court to index-link the judicial awards violated their right to the peaceful enjoinment of their possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocole No. 1 the relevant part of which reads as follows:

“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. ”

By letter dated 17 January 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government aknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocole No. 1 in connection with the refusal of indexation of monetary sums awarded by judgments in the applicants’ favour. In an annex to the declarations they stated in particular that such refusal did not comply with the existing practice regarding indexation of monetary sums awarded by the courts. They referred in this regard to the relevant findings of the European Court in Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 93, 107, 15 January 2009 and a decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia of 20 March 2008. They also declared their intention to pay the applicants the sums tabulated below (see annex) as just satisfaction. The remainder of their declarations, formulated in similar terms, reads as follows:

“The sum referred to above (see annex), 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 European Convention on Human Rights. 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 letters of 26 and 28 February 2011 respectively, the representatives of the sixth and the first applicants agreed with the sums proposed in the Government’s declarations. The other applicants did not provide any comments on the Government’s declarations.

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.”

Having regard to the acknowledgement of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contained in the declarations together with the amounts of compensations proposed, and bearing in mind that the applicants did not object to the declarations, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present applications. 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 applications (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court notes in this respect that the violations at issue clearly resulted from a breach of domestic law and established practice as aknowledged by the Government. The Court does not therefore see any compelling reason of public order to warrant its examination on the merits.

Accordingly, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list.

Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

However, in 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 the applications in this part are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as the complaints about refusal to index-link the judicial awards are concerned;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President

APPENDIX