European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30432/06
Valeriy Petrovich SAYGANOV against Russia
and 4 other applications

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 February 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 28 January 2011 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals and live in Yakutsk, the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix respectively. 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 cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants receive pensions from the State on account of their former employment in police. Having seen their monthly payments substantially decreased since 1999, they sued the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Sakha-Yakutiya (“the Ministry”) before the Justice of Peace for the 43^rd circuit of Yakutsk for reimbursement of outstanding amounts.

On 23 June 2005 the Justice of Peace allowed their claims and ordered the Ministry to pay the applicants various amounts in Russian Roubles (RUB) mentioned in the table below. The judgment was not appealed against and became binding and enforceable ten days later. It is not clear from the parties’ submissions whether the judicial awards were paid to the applicants.

On 27 January 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia granted the Ministry’s request for supervisory review and quashed the abovementioned judgment, referring to erroneous application of substantive law by the lower court. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ claims by the same judgment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgment in their favour by way of supervisory review.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF APPLICATIONS

Given that the applications at hand concern similar complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single decision.

II.  COMPLAINT about supervisory review of the judgment in the applicants’ favour

The applicants in all cases complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the final judgment of 23 June 2005 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 27 January 2006. In so far as relevant, these Articles read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“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.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

By letter dated 28 January 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged explicitly a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgment in the applicants’ favour. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated in the appendix. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The remainder of the declarations 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, 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.

[These payments] will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The applicants disagreed with the Government’s suggestion to strike their cases out, insisting on examination of the rest of their complaints. They contested the amounts proposed by the Government as not corresponding to the losses they sustained.

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”.

It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wish the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003 VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).

Turning to the facts of present case, the Court observes that the judgment of 23 June 2005 providing the applicants with an enforceable claim was quashed by way of supervisory review on 27 January 2006. The Court is satisfied that the quashing of binding and enforceable judgment in the applicants’ favour is explicitly acknowledged by the Government as breaching Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

As regards the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, the Court notes that the applicants did not expressly state that the amounts awarded by the judgment of 23 June 2005 were not paid to them. Nor was this point clarified by the Government. The Court observes at the same time that the applicants earlier submitted their claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention limiting them to loss of value of the awarded sums due to inflation. In these circumstances, the Court finds it rather logical that the Government based their proposal in respect of pecuniary damage based on the applicants’ calculation and offered exactly the same sums in their unilateral declarations. The Court cannot therefore accept the applicants’ argument that the proposed compensation for pecuniary damage is inadequate or otherwise unreasonable.

As far as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage is concerned, the Court notes that the relevant sums offered by the Government are comparable with Court’s awards in similar cases (see Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 4563/07 et al., § 23, 17 December 2009, and Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, (nos. 8549/06 et al., § 96, 29 July 2010).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic (see, for example, Kulkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 25114/03 et al., 8 January 2009, and Pugach and Others v. Russia, nos. 31799/08 et al., 4 November 2010), 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.

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 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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.

André Wampach Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX