European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF BOKAREVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 7895/21 and 14 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 July 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bokareva and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
 Frédéric Krenc,
 Davor Derenčinović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Russian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

7.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 
1.

1. Admissibility

8.  The Court must firstly ascertain whether the applicants maintain their victim status, regard being had to the domestic compensation proceedings instituted by them in connection with the alleged non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. It therefore reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her victim status if national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-93, ECHR 2006-V).

9.  The Court notes that the relevant claims brought by Ms Bokareva, Mr Belov and Mr Pronichev (applications nos. 7895/21, 7938/21, and 41985/21, respectively) were dismissed by the domestic courts. Accordingly, the Court finds it established that at no time did the domestic authorities acknowledge a breach of the Convention in respect of the applicants and that the latter can still claim to be the victims of the violation alleged.

10.  As to the remainder of the applications, the Court notes that, even though the domestic authorities expressly acknowledged that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicants monetary compensation in that respect, it cannot accept that the amount awarded to the applicants on account of the violation of their rights is sufficient or comparable to what it generally awards in similar Russian cases. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicants may still claim to be the victims of the violation alleged.

11.  The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

12.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a "hearing" for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II).

13.  Having regard to the nature of the judicial awards in the applicants' favour (see the appended table), the Court considers that the applicants had, by virtue of these judgments, a "legitimate expectation" to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 
1.

14.  In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

15.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants' favour.

16.  These complaints therefore disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

4. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

17.  The applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. Having examined all the material before it, and given the findings above, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately additional complaints raised by the applicant under Article 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016).

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§ 187-200), the Court considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the applicant in application no. 7895/21 (compare Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). It also finds it reasonable to award to the remaining applicants the sums indicated in the appended table.

19.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions admissible and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants' complaints raised under Article 13 of the Convention;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;
5. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;
6. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 7895/21;
7. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the remaining applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.