FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 7120/03
Lidiya Sergeyevna LUNINA and Others
against Russia
(see annex for other applications)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
	Sverre Erik Jebens, President,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009‑...),
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 those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Russian nationals. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated below.
Ms A. Issayeva, Ms M. Khabarova, Ms T. Yakovleva and Mr K. Mokhnatkin died after lodging their applications under Article 34 of the Convention. Their successors Mr I. Zhukov, Ms N. Khabarova, Ms N. Sokolova and Ms N. Makhnatkina, respectively, indicated their interest in pursuing the proceedings.
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.
The applicants sued the State authorities in domestic courts for payment of various monetary sums due under the Russian law. The courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay various amounts in the form of lump sums and/or of periodic payments to be upgraded in line with the inflation in the country. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement.
In particular, on 27 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded Ms Grigorenko’s mother, who had died in September 2000, a certain amount for indexation of her pension (application no. 14218/06). The Government stated that Ms Grigorenko had obtained her inheritance certificate on 23 November 2005 and submitted it together with the writ of execution shortly thereafter. The judgment was enforced on 20 December 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour and, in certain cases, of assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the judicial or enforcement proceedings.
THE LAW
I. LOCUS STANDI
The Court takes note of certain applicants’ death and of the interest of their successors in pursuing the proceedings.
The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX). Furthermore, in some cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006).
The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the cases referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights the applicants sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). The Government did not contend that any of the successors mentioned above had no standing to pursue the cases. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicants’ successors have a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications.
II. COMPLAINTS OF NON-ENFORCEMENT
Regarding Ms Grigorenko’s complaint of delayed enforcement of the judgment of 27 November 2000, the Court takes cognisance of the Government’s submissions and is satisfied that it was the applicant’s responsibility to inform the State of her status as heir to the deceased claimant with an award against the State. The Court considers that in this situation the State cannot bear responsibility for the delay in the payment of the award (see Ziabreva v. Russia, no. 23567/06, § 21, 18 December 2008). Accordingly, this complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
As to the other applications, following the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above the Government informed the Court of the payment of the domestic court awards in the applicants’ favour and submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged in various but very similar terms that judgments in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in a timely manner (e.g. “the excessive duration of the enforcement”, “the delay in the enforcement” or “the lengthy enforcement”). They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums tabulated below. The remainder of the declarations read 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.”
Some applicants agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. Others failed to reply. A majority disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient.
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.”
The Court recalls that in its pilot judgment (Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), cited above) it ordered the Russian Federation to
“grant [adequate and sufficient] redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, 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 the delivery of the present judgment and whose applications [had been] communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court.”
In the same judgment the Court also held that:
“pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court [would] adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment [became] final, the proceedings in all cases concerning solely the non-enforcement and/or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments ordering monetary payments by the State authorities, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention.”
Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 127 and 145 and point 7 of the operative part).
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants’ favour is acknowledged by the Government either explicitly or in substance. The Court also notes that the compensations offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delays in each particular case (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 99 and 154).
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. It is also 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.
Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour are concerned, the applications should be struck out of the list.
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 of the Convention (see the Committee’s decisions of 14-15 September 2009 (CM/Del/Dec(2009)1065) and Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)1 58 concerning the implementation of the Burdov (no. 2) 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 applications to the list of cases (see E.G. v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008‑... (extracts)).
III. OTHER COMPLAINTS
Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles of the Convention. 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 applications in this part are 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 join the applications;

Declares the complaint of non-enforcement made by Ms L. Grigorenko inadmissible;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations;
Decides to strike the applications in respect of non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour out of its list of cases;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
	André Wampach	Sverre Erik Jebens
	Deputy Registrar	President

ANNEX

No	Application No	Last name	Forename	Born	Compensation offered (euros)	
1.		7120/03	LUNINA

BARKALOVA

CHERNYSHOVA

DAMARAD

DAVYDOVA

GLADILOVA

ISSAYEVA

KALAYEVA

KHABAROVA

KHVOSTOVA

MALKHOVA

MAMONOVA

PLOTNIKOVA

SAMSONOVA

SELIVANOVA

SHUMILINA

SVIRIDOV

YERINA

ZABALUYEVA
	LIDIYA SERGEYEVNA

LIDIYA MITROFANOVNA

OLGA MIKHAYLOVNA

BORIS ALEKSANDROVICH

ANASTASIYA IVANOVNA

GALINA SERGEYEVNA

ALEKSANDRA PAVLOVNA

RAISA ILYINICHNA

MARIYA ILYINICHNA

ANNA SEMENOVNA

ZOYA NIKOLAYEVNA

TAMARA ANDREYEVNA

LIDIYA VYACHESLAVOVNA

VALENTINA GRIGORYEVNA

MARIYA VASILYEVNA

TATYANA VASILYEVNA

GENNADIY MIKHAYLOVICH

YELENA PETROVNA

NATALYA SERGEYEVNA
	1958

1940

1952

1957

1940

1944

1929

1949

1933

1940

1938

1944

1960

1943

1939

1945

1932

1955

1953	1,800

2,100

2,000

1,500

2,150

850

1900

1,700

2,300

2,150

1,800

1,800

2,300

2,000

2,000

2,100

1,980

1,900

1,600	
2.		34436/04	MOROZ

YAKOVLEVA

SELEZNEV
	RAIDA VIKTOROVNA

TATYANA PETROVNA

YURIY IVANOVICH	1936

1934

1940	2,500

2,600

2,500	
3.		39945/04	KRAVCHENKO
	ALEKSANDR ANTONOVICH	1954
	3,000	
4.		2107/05	KURZHALOV
	OLEG PETROVICH	1954	610	
5.		3453/05	TURMANOV
	TARIYEL NIKOLAYEVICH	1954	2,456	
6.		4249/05	MAKSIM
	ANDREY ANDREYEVICH	1981	1,100	
7.		4523/05	PETUKHOV
	ANATOLIY ALEKSANDROVICH	1949	2,905	
8.		4943/05	SANIN
	VIKTOR ALEKSANDROVICH	1956	1,584	
9.		12254/05
	KOSYGIN	VYACHESLAV FEDOROVICH	1948	785	
10.		13094/05	DUBRAVIN	NIKOLAY GRIGORYEVICH
	1949	2,904	
11.		18611/05	GERASIMENKO
	GALINA VASILYEVNA	1945	1,760	
12.		22256/05	NOSKOV
	ROMAN VIKTOROVICH	1961	2,670	
13.		22668/05	MILKEVICH
	YURIY STANISLAVOVICH	1957	1,640	
14.		31957/05	MARTIROSYAN
	EDVART NAPOLEONOVICH	1956	766	
15.		33595/05	KUNDYUSOV
	ANDREY IVANOVICH	1962	966	
16.		36458/05	PUSTOVAROV	ANDREY VLADIMIROVICH	1972	2,970	
17.		38083/05	ANDREYTSEVA

CHERNENKO
	GALINA ALEKSANDROVNA

GALINA GRIGORYEVNA	1955

1955	1,087

1,087	
18.		42513/05	VOBLIKOV
	VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH	1948	620	
19.		2060/06	FEDOREY
	ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH	1958	2,430	
20.		4138/06	USHAKOVA
	NADEZHDA NIKOLAYEVNA	1957	3,925	
21.		4158/06	SALMENKOVA
	GALINA RUFOVNA	1960	1,572	
22.		14218/06	GUBINA

NOVIKOVA

ZHIGULINA

KARPOVA

GRIGORENKO
	TAMARA AFANASYEVNA

VALENTINA VASILYEVNA

PELAGEYA ALEKSEYEVNA

LIDIYA IVANOVNA

LIDIYA NIKOLAYEVNA	1934

1931

1935

1941

1934	1,500

1,500

1,500

1,500

Declared inadmissible	
23.		15400/06	GREKOVA
	OLGA PAVLOVNA	1968	2,609	
24.		18363/06	SAZONOV
	SERGEY ANATOLYEVICH	1958	3,955	
25.		28225/06	GADZHIYEV
	OMAR DZHABRAILOVICH	1961	2,000	
26.		31401/06	YERMOLAYEV
	VLADIMIR SEMENOVICH	1953	990	
27.		42611/06	 ZAO LIZINGOVAYA KOMPANIYA ‘GEOLIZING’
			1,628	
28.		44973/06	SEMITKOVSKIY

LAPIK

SOKOLENKO
KRAMARENKO

SHCHEGELSKIY

ALCHINSKIY
	VITALIY GRIGORYEVICH

ALEKSEY LEONIDOVICH

IGOR VLADIMIROVICH
DMITRIY ANATOLYEVICH

NIKOLAY NIKOLAYEVICH

NIKOLAY ANATOLYEVICH	1957

1953

1964
1967

1962

1960	1,553

2,096

1,778
1,743

1,447

1,592	
29.		45414/06	TSAPENKO
	GEORGIY GEORGIYEVICH	1950
	650	
30.		2258/07	ANTOSHKIV
	NADEZHDA ALEKSANDROVNA	1937	835	
31.		5669/07	KONSTANTINOV
	MIKHAIL VASILYEVICH	1956	5,000	
32.		5672/07	LOSEVA
	LYUBOV YAKOVLEVNA	1950	700	
33.		11344/07	YEVSENOCHKIN
	VLADIMIR PAVLOVICH	1946	804	
34.		14538/07	MAKHNATKINA	NINA YEVGENYEVNA	1935
	1,610	
35.		19514/07	PRIKHODCHENKO
	NIKOLAY GRIGORYEVICH	1951
	857	
36.		19651/07	GORSKAYA
	NATALIYA MIKHAYLOVNA	1946
	927	
37.		25181/07	BAZAYEVA

BARSEGYANTS

DOROKHOV

GAZZAYEV

KIRICHENKO

KOBLOV

KOLIYEV

KORAYEV

KRAVCHENKO

KULUMBEKOV

PAVLIOSHVILI

POSYAKIN

SAFIBEKOV

TIGIYEV

TOMAYEV

ZHITNIK
	SVETLANA FEDOROVNA

AVETIS SARKISOVICH

SERGEY NIKOLAYEVICH

VIKTOR KAZBEKOVICH

IGOR STANISLAVOVICH

FELIKS CHERMENOVICH

ALAN KHASANBEKOVICH

ANATOLIY PAVLOVICH

SERGEY NIKOLAYEVICH

VALERIY GAVRILOVICH

GELA SHAVLOVICH

DMITRIY VALENTINOVICH

ZANGIR KHALIDDIN-OGLY

RUSLAN ANDREYEVICH

OLEG IRAKLIYEVICH

SOSLAN YEVGENYEVICH	1957

1959

1956

1970

1973

1966

1967

1955

1965

1963

1967

1955

1969

1961

1953

1969	1,460

1,370

1,600

1,750

1,450

1,600

1,320

1,780

1,350

1,650

1,350

3,000

1,670

1,470

1,550

1,600	
38.		30260/07	BUGLEYEV
	OLEG ALEKSEYEVICH	1952	2,200	
39.		35007/07	TATARSHAO
	AMIR KHADZHIBIYEVICH	1952	1,394	
40.		36894/07	RESIN
	ANDREY IGOREVICH	1974	2,467	
41.		37004/07	BELYANIN
	ANATOLIY VASILYEVICH	1948	820	
42.		44866/07	BULATOV
	NIKOLAY ILYICH	1939
	835	
43.		56480/07	YERIN
	SERGEY VASILYEVICH	1963	900	
44.		10318/08	ROZHKOV
	VLADIMIR VASILYEVICH	1955	3,600	
45.		12376/08	KALOYEV
	TAYMURAZ MAISEYEVICH	1981	2,800	
46.		16247/08	LISITSKAYA
	ANNA MIKHAYLOVNA	1931	5,000	
47.		20802/08	LEDENTSOV
	GENNADIY YEVGENYEVICH	1939	500	
48.		20806/08	SHAYEKHOV

YANAGAYEV
	ISKANDER MINNEKHANOVICH

ALEKSEY DMITRIYEVICH	1953

1987	1,150

1,150	
49.		22165/08	KOLKHITOVA
	ANDZELINA KAZBEKOVNA	1969	3,400	
50.		30626/08	KOCHKINA
	IDEYA IVANOVNA	1936	1,020	
51.		30632/08	SOKOL
	BORIS MIRONOVICH	1944	870	
52.		32219/08	KOPCHENKO
	ZINAIDA IVANOVNA 	1943	860	
53.		32221/08	MITROFANOVA
	NADEZHDA IVANOVNA	1950	880	
54.		32225/08	KOCHKIN
	VLADIMIR FEDOROVICH	1936	1,050	
55.		40332/08	PETRAKI
	VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH	1982	3,000	
56.		59373/08	SHERIYEV
	KHABAS MUKHAMEDOVICH	1975	3,900	
57.		8421/09	SHAMANAYEVA
	TATYANA YEVGENYEVNA	1950	3,010