The case originated in four applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates, including application no. 54430\/08 by Ms Nadezhda Pavlovna Matveyeva lodged on 6 October 2008.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Matveyeva and Others v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 6 December 2018),<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Peeter Roosma, President, Having deliberated in private on 10 March 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in four applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates, including application no.\u00a054430\/08 by Ms Nadezhda Pavlovna Matveyeva lodged on 6\u00a0October 2008.<\/p>\n 2. In the judgment delivered on 6\u00a0December 2018, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention in respect of all applications, and a violation of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention in respect of three applications including the application by Ms Matveyeva (no.\u00a054430\/08) on account of the non\u2011enforcement or delayed enforcement of the final and binding judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour and the lack of effective remedies, including the judgment of 18\u00a0August 2006 of the Frolovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region given against a municipal unitary enterprise in favour of Ms Matveyeva. The Court held that the respondent State was to enforce, within three months, the domestic judgments which have not been enforced. It also decided to award each applicant, including Ms\u00a0Matveyeva, 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 3. On 27\u00a0May 2019 the Government informed the Court that the applicant Ms Matveyeva had died on 16\u00a0June 2015. They had learned of the applicant\u2019s death from a letter of 15\u00a0February 2019 by the applicant\u2019s daughter, Ms\u00a0Svetlana Borisovna Yemelyanova (born in 1977), who had expressed a wish to maintain the case in the late applicant\u2019s stead. The Government accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 4. On 29\u00a0August 2019 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give Ms Yemelyanova three weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 11\u00a0October 2019. The Government submitted their comments in reply on 31\u00a0March 2020.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 6\u00a0December 2018, which they had been unable to execute because the applicant had died long before the judgment had been adopted. They noted that the applicant\u2019s daughter or any other next of kin had failed to either inform the Court of the applicant\u2019s demise or to provide any plausible explanation for their failure to do so. Accordingly, they asked the Court either to strike the application out of the list or, alternatively, to exclude both the order to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant and the obligation to enforce the domestic judgment in the late applicant\u2019s favour from the relevant parts of the judgment. They noted that the Court had made its award under Article\u00a041 after the applicant\u2019s death, and therefore the respective amount could not have been inherited under the domestic law.<\/p>\n 6. Ms Yemelyanova, the late applicant\u2019s daughter, argued in reply that she wished to maintain the case in Ms Matveyeva\u2019s stead, that she was the late applicant\u2019s only legal successor, and that she was entitled to receive the amounts awarded by the domestic courts to her late mother which had not been paid to her in due time. She submitted a succession certificate by a public notary dated 19\u00a0January 2019 confirming that she had inherited the applicant\u2019s assets consisting of 817,156.62\u00a0Russian roubles awarded to the late applicant by the Frolovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region on 18\u00a0August 2006. She further submitted a decision of the same court of 24\u00a0October 2019 by which the district court had replaced the claimant in respect of the original judgment of 18\u00a0August 2006 by the applicant\u2019s legal successor Ms Yemelyanova. She stated that she had not informed the Court of the applicant\u2019s death because more than ten years had elapsed between the date of introduction of the applicant\u2019s complaint with the Court and the date of the Court\u2019s judgment, and that such delay could not be attributed to the applicant or her next of kin.<\/p>\n 7. The Government maintained their position and further argued in reply that, as in 2019 the daughter had been declared claimant in the initial domestic proceedings, she was entitled to have the domestic judgment enforced in her favour. Finally, they stated that it had not followed from the letter by the applicant\u2019s daughter that she had sought to receive \u201cjust satisfaction awarded to Ms Matveyeva by the Court\u201d.<\/p>\n 8. Relevant parts of Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court provide:<\/p>\n \u201cA party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court … to revise that judgment. …\u201d<\/p>\n 9. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s death constitutes \u201cthe discovery of a fact … which when [the] judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court\u201d. It also constitutes a fact of \u201cdecisive influence\u201d on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule\u00a080\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01. The Court accepts that this decisive fact \u201ccould not reasonably have been expected to be known\u201d to the Government, which became aware of the applicant\u2019s death on 15\u00a0February 2019 (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v.\u00a0Albania (revision), nos.\u00a0604\/07 and 3\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a09-10, 4 November 2014). They filed a request for a revision of the judgment on 27\u00a0May 2019, that is, within the time-limit provided for in Rule\u00a080.<\/p>\n 10. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the judgment of 6\u00a0December 2018 should be revised in the part concerning the complaint by late Ms Matveyeva pursuant to Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 11. The Court further recalls that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed in a timely manner a wish to pursue the application, without providing an explanation for such failure (see Cacuci and S.C. Virra & Cont Pad S.R.L. v.\u00a0Romania (revision), no.\u00a027153\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a06-11, 13\u00a0November 2018; Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v.\u00a0Romania (revision), no.\u00a047732\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a09-11,\u00a022\u00a0March 2016; and Gabay v.\u00a0Turkey (revision), no.\u00a070829\/01, 27\u00a0June 2006). The Court sees no reason to depart from this approach in this case, taking into account that the applicant\u2019s death had occurred three years before the date of the Court\u2019s judgment, and noting that the applicant\u2019s daughter had failed to provide any valid reason for not being able to inform the Court earlier about her mother\u2019s death (see, by contrast, Nicolae Augustin R\u0103dulescu v.\u00a0Romania (revision), no.\u00a017295\/10, \u00a7\u00a09, 19 May 2015). The Court further finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the present application (see Cacuci and S.C. Virra & Cont Pad S.R.L., cited above).<\/p>\n 12. Accordingly, application no.\u00a054430\/08 introduced by Ms Nadezhda Pavlovna Matveyeva should be struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to revise the judgment of 6\u00a0December 2018 in the case of Matveyeva and Others v.\u00a0Russia in respect of application no.\u00a054430\/08;<\/p>\n and, accordingly:<\/p>\n 2. Decides to strike application no. 54430\/08, lodged by Mr Nadezhda Pavlovna Matveyeva, out of its list of cases.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 July 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Peeter Roosma
\nCASE OF MATVEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 54430\/08)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\n(Revision)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n28 July 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n