European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21708/05
Yuriy Nikolayevich PANOV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 April 2005,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 2 March 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s acceptance of that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Nikolayevich Panov, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Sankt-Peterburg. 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 27 May 1998 the Volkhovskiy Town Court of Leningrad Region ordered the applicant’s reinstatement at work as the managing director of a private company OOO “Valgomka” and awarded him payments of lost earnings, arrears on salary, vacation allowance, and compensation for psychological distress. Subsequently, the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Bailiff’s Service of Volkhov and on 13 July 1998 the enforcement proceedings were initiated.

On 7 July 2002 the Volkhovskiy Town Court of Leningrad Region acting on the applicant’s complaint against the alleged inaction of the bailiffs ordered the Bailiff’s Service of Volkhov to enforce the abovementioned judgment.

On 6 December 2002 he was reinstated at work as the managing director of a private company OOO “Valgomka”. On 13 October 2004 the Federal Bailiff’s Service for the Volkhov District terminated the enforcement proceedings concerning the remainder of the judgment due to bankruptcy of the debtor.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the length of the enforcement proceedings concerning a judicial award against a private party. Further, he complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings for review of the bailiffs’ actions.

THE LAW

COMPLAINTS OF NON-ENFORCEMENT

By letter dated 2 March 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. The Russian authorities acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgment delivered by the Volkhovskiy Town Court of Leningrad Region on 27 May 1998 and proposed payment of a just satisfaction of 3700 euros. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] 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.”

In a letter of 12 April 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was satisfactory and that he accepts it.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 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”.

The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings of the judgment in the applicants’ favour is acknowledged by the Government and that the Russian authorities offered him compensation in this respect. It also notes that the applicant agreed to the Government’s offer and informed the Court that he was ready to withdraw his complaint regarding the delay in enforcement of the judgment of the Volkhovskiy Town Court of 27 May 1998 on the conditions proposed by the Government.

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, the applicant’s acceptance of the declaration, and the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list in the part concerning the delay in enforcement of the Volkhovskiy Town Court of 27 May 1998.

OTHER COMPLAINTS

Further, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings for review of the bailiffs’ actions. 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 the application in this part 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

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the issue of non-enforcement;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President