YAUROV A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33492/04
by Ivan Fedorovich YAUROV and Others
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 July 2004,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Ivan Fedorovich Yaurov and four others (see table), are Russian nationals, who live in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region. The three applicants are represented before the Court by Ms S. Poznakhirina, a legal expert in Novovoronezh. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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.

In 2003-2004 the applicants sued the Novovoronezh Town Social Security Service for pension arrears, increase of monthly pensions and compensation for damage.

In 2003-2004 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region granted the applicants’ actions and awarded them the amounts listed in the attached table. All of the judgments, but one, were not appealed against and became final.

The judgments were enforced in full on 7, 9 and 30 June 2005.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the final judgments made in their favour.

THE LAW

On 21 March 2005 the application was communicated to the Government.

On 14 July 2005 the Government submitted their observations. They informed the Court that on 11 July 2005 the applicants and the Main Division of Labour and Social Development of the Voronezh Regional Administration had signed friendly-settlement agreements. According to the agreements, the authorities undertook to pay each applicant 3,000 euros in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for the delayed non-enforcement of the judgments. These sums were to be exempt from any taxes and paid to the applicants within three months from the date of the Court’s decision to strike the application off its list of cases. In their turn, the applicants undertook to withdraw their application with the Court. The parties undertook to inform the Court about the exact date of payment of the indicated sums.

On 18 July 2005 the Government’s observations with enclosures were sent to the applicants. They were asked to submit written observations in reply, including their comments regarding the friendly settlement, by 19 September 2005.

On 20 November 2005 Ms Poznakhirina asked the Court to continue the examination of the application because the friendly-settlement agreements had not been signed by the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court and, thus, they were invalid. She further submitted that the applicants had not yet received EUR 3,000 which they expected to receive under the settlements.

On 10 October 2006 the Government once again confirmed that the settlements had been reached with the applicants on 11 July 2005. The Government considered those settlements binding. They also informed the Court that the Representative of the Russian Federation was willing to sign the agreements of 11 July 2005 to dismiss the applicants’ concerns as to the binding effect of the settlements.

The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

(b) the matter has been resolved;

...

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 takes note of the settlements reached between the parties. It further observes that two of the applicants, who were not represented by Ms Poznakhirina, did not dispute the validity of the settlements and did not ask the Court to continue the examination of the case. Moreover, they did not respond to the Court’s letter of 18 July 2005 and did not submit any further comments or claims. It, thus, appears that following the friendly-settlement agreements they no longer intend to pursue their application.

As concerns the request of Ms Poznakhirina, made on 20 November 2005, the Court notes that she did not contest the authenticity of the friendly-settlement agreements. Nor did she argue that the applicants had signed them against their will. It appears that the request of 20 November 2005 had been caused by the mere misunderstanding of the terms of the agreements as to the date of the payment and the absence of the signature of the Representative of the Russian Federation. In this respect, the Court takes note of the readiness of the Representative to sign the agreements. As to the misunderstanding of the terms of the settlements, the Court observes that the agreements are drafted in the clear and precise manner, which excludes any doubts as to their content. The Court also reiterates that Ms Poznakhirina is a legal expert and, thus, she could have provided the applicants with legal advice during the friendly-settlement negotiations. Accordingly, the Court does not find any ground to doubt the validity of the settlements reached by the parties and, thus, it considers that the matter was resolved at the domestic level (see Sarkisyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 20812/03, 2 March 2006).

The Court further reiterates that in cases in which it is possible to eliminate the effects of an alleged violation and the Government declare their readiness to do so, the intended redress is more likely to be regarded as appropriate for the purposes of striking out the application, the Court, as always, retaining its power to restore the application to its list as provided in Article 37 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 5 of the Rules of Court (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 76 in fine, ECHR 2004‑III).

Accordingly, being satisfied that the settlements in the present case are based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, the Court finds no reason of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article.

Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis              Registrar              President

Table