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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7E222218 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; font-size:12pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 8065/08 Nadezhda Anatolyevna LIBERMAN against Russia and 21 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 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: FACTS 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 facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were parties to civil proceedings that took place in courts of ordinary jurisdiction in various regions of Russia. These disputes concerned various civil matters such as labour, housing, property and monetary issues. In all of the above cases the domestic courts took lengthy periods of time to examine the applicants’ claims ranging between two and nine years. COMPLAINTS In particular, the applicants complained about the length of the proceedings in their cases. In certain cases they also complained of lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of undue length of the proceedings. 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 The applicants complained about excessive length of the proceedings in their civil cases. On various dates the Government submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving this issue. 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 relevant part of the declarations reads as follows: “... The Russian authorities acknowledge that the length of the proceedings in [the applicants’ cases] was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. ... The authorities of the Russian Federation are ready to pay [to each applicant] a sum of [the amount suggested] as just satisfaction. 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. [These payments] will constitute the final resolution of [the cases].” Some applicants disagreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Some of them insisted on the examination of their applications on the merits. Some applicants failed to reply. 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 in paragraph 1   (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.” To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law. The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases is acknowledged by the Government. 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 the proceedings in each particular case. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. As to whether the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto requires the Court to continue the examination of the present applications, it notes that the Convention organs have consistently interpreted Article 37 of the Convention as compelling them to continue the examination of a case, notwithstanding its settlement by the parties or the existence of any other ground for striking the case out of its list. A further examination of a case was thus found to be necessary when it raised questions of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention (see Tyrer v. the United Kingdom , 25 April 1978, Series   A no.   26). Such questions of a general character would arise, for example, where there is a need to clarify the States’ obligations under the Convention or to induce the respondent State to resolve a structural deficiency affecting other persons in the same position as the applicant. The Court has thus been frequently led, under Article 37 of the Convention, to verify that the general problem raised by the case had been or was being remedied and that similar legal issues had been resolved by the Court in other cases (see, among many others, Can v. Austria , 30 September 1985, §§   15-18, Series A no. 96, and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, §   51, 30 March 2009). The Court does not see any compelling reason of public order to warrant examination of the present applications on the merits. Firstly, the Court has on numerous occasions determined issues analogous to those arising in the instant cases and ascertained in great detail the States’ obligations under the Convention in that respect (see, among many others, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, §§ 131 and 160, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Kormacheva v.   Russia , no.   53084/99, §§ 57 and 64, 29 January 2004). Secondly, on 4   May 2010 the Russian authorities introduced a new domestic remedy against unreasonable length of court proceedings, which was deemed prima facie effective by the Court and now requires to be exhausted (see Fakhretdinov and Others v.   Russia (dec.), no. 26716/09 et al., 23 September 2010). As a consequence, an examination on the merits of the present cases would not bring any new element in this regard. Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned, that part of applications should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (c) 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 their disposal an effective domestic 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 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 pilot judgment 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 , cited above, § 32). 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 of the Convention in the present cases (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). 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 (c) of the Convention; Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaints of lack of an effective remedy.   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)   8065/08 28/12/2007 Nadezhda Anatolyevna LIBERMAN 13/01/1962 Chelyabinsk   Represented by : Yelena Vladimirovna LAVRENTYEVA   3,800   10881/08 31/01/2008 Nina Georgiyevna BURBA 01/01/1939 Tula Yelena Borisovna BURBA 01/01/1963 Tula   4,000 to each   13699/08 19/02/2008 Larisa Ivanovna ROMANTSOVA 17/08/1945 Novosibirsk   3,800   14427/08 14/01/2008 Valeriy Petrovich BABKIN 11/06/1953 Kaliningrad   2,200   14512/08 14/01/2008 Viktor Vladimirovich KOSHELEV 19/06/1957 St Petersburg 2,400   17111/08 25/03/2008 Veniamin Yevgenyevich CHEKUSHIN 10/10/1959 Pushkino 3,600   18690/08 04/02/2008 Boris Gavrilovich GRACHEV 26/10/1928 Pushkino   1,700   20016/08 03/03/2008 Nikolay Aleksandrovich YEVSEYEV 22/10/1969 Andreyevo   1,800   22183/08 15/04/2008 Marina Vasilyevna IVANOVSKAYA 16/04/1958 Tula   1,000             23046/08 05/04/2008 Gennadiy Semenovich DMITRIYEV 22/05/1950 Murmansk   Represented by : Vladimir Ivanovich FEDOROV   3,500             28393/08 21/05/2008 Sergey Nikolayevich BACHURIN 17/06/1959 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             31385/08 22/05/2008 Oleg Vladimirovich MURZIN 14/09/1967 Nizhnevartovsk 2,400             31386/08 22/05/2008 Sergey Anatolyevich DANILENKO 04/10/1972 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             31387/08 22/05/2008 Andrey Georgiyevich KHMELEV 22/07/1970 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             37119/08 22/05/2008 Nikolay Vladimirovich ALADYSHKIN 01/10/1955 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             37121/08 22/05/2008 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich BOYKOV 29/08/1966 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             41259/08 22/05/2008 Oleg Anatolyevich SAMOLOV 21/12/1957 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             41262/08 22/05/2008 Vladimir Alekseyevich LYSYAKOV 12/05/1972 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             54529/08 22/05/2008 Oleg Kharitonovich MAKSIM 13/03/1968 Nizhnevartovsk     2,400             54914/08 21/05/2008 Oleg Aleksandrovich BAZHENOV 19/01/1962 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             55074/08 22/05/2008 Ivan Ivanovich VALISHEVSKIY 21/09/1956 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400             55207/08 22/05/2008 Pavel Viktorovich BEZRUCHENKOV 17/07/1960 Nizhnevartovsk   2,400