CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 janvier 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3C33F117 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 5199/06 Andzhana Sagidovna MINKAILOVA against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27   January 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ acceptance of their terms, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings in their cases. In certain cases they also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of undue length of the proceedings, assorted faults that accompanied the proceedings and other issues. In particular, in applications nos. 5199/06, 45647/06 and 51125/06 the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 about unfair trial and domestic courts’ assessment of facts and law in their civil proceedings. In application no. 4045/07 the applicant complained under Article   6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 of the incorrect application of the domestic law in his court proceedings concerning calculation of social allocations. THE LAW Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision. A.     Complaints about the length of proceedings By letters dated 18 January 2013, 31 January 2013, 5 February 2013 and three letters dated 1 April 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article   6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums tabulated below. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court considers that Article   37 §   1   (b) is applicable in the present case in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned. Accordingly, that part of applications should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. B.     Complaint of lack of an effective domestic remedy Some applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings. The Government did not specify their position in relation to this complaint. The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduced by the federal laws №   68 ‑ FZ and №   69-FZ on 4 May 2010 in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009). On 23 September 2010 the Court decided that all new cases introduced after the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment, cited above, and falling within the scope of the new domestic remedy had to be submitted in the first place to the national courts (see Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia   (dec.), nos.   26716/09 et al., §   32, 23 September 2010). The Court also stated that its position may be subject to review in the future, depending in particular on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent practice under the new law in line with the Convention requirements (ibid, § 33). Finally, the Court notes that all the applicants were in principle enabled to claim compensation under the transitional provisions of the new law and that they will in any event receive pecuniary compensation in respect of their grievances in accordance with the Government’s declarations examined above. Having regard to these special circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to continue a separate examination of the complaints under Article   13 in the present case ( see, Zemlyanskiy and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos.   18969/06 et al., 13 March 2012, and Pobudilina and Others v.   Russia   (dec.), nos. 7142/05 et al., 29 March 2011 ) . C.     Other complaints As for the applicants’ accessory complaints in the applications nos.   45647/06, 51125/06, 5199/06 and 4045/07 referring to various Articles of the Convention, 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 this part of the applications 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, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations; Decides to strike the applications in respect of the length of proceedings out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (b) of the Convention; Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaints of lack of an effective remedy; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 February 2015. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Compensation offered (euros)   5199/06 20/12/2005 Andzhana Sagidovna MINKAILOVA 07/05/1969 Kaspiysk   2,500   34999/06 30/07/2006 Sergey Petrovich FILATOV 18/01/1962 St Petersburg   4,800   45647/06 12/10/2006 Vladimir Alekseyevich MOROZOV 20/02/1949 St Petersburg   3,500   49922/06 10/11/2006 Tatyana Yevgenyevna SEREBRENNIKOVA 19/07/1943 St Petersburg   3,500   51125/06 11/12/2006 Vladimir Ivanovich DOROZHKIN 29/03/1960 Smyshlyayevka   3,500   4045/07 12/12/2006 Aleksandr Nikolayevich KONNOV 09/02/1949 Volgograd   4,000   12730/07 19/02/2007 Vladimir Borisovich VVEDENSKIY 11/06/1951 Yezheva   4,000