THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 43028\/09
\nAnna Kuzminichna KOLOBUTINA and Others
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 July 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Branko Lubarda, President,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,<\/p>\n
andFato\u015fArac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2009,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the rectified declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 18\u00a0October 2017 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants\u2019 replies to that declarations,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n Two lists of the applicants are set out in the appended tables. In particular, Mr Kolobutin lodged complaints on his own behalf and on behalf of his late mother, MsKolobutina (see line 1 of Appendix I below). Ms\u00a0Moroz lodged complaints on her own behalf and on behalf of her late relative, Ms Markova (see line 5 of Appendix I below).<\/p>\n The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G.\u00a0Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n The applicants complained, among other matters, about the delayed enforcement of the judgments of the Zelenogradskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region of 25\u00a0May 2004 and of 20\u00a0July 2004 ordering the domestic authorities to allot a land plot to each of them. The applicants also complained about the lack of the effective remedies in respect of the non\u2011enforcement complaint.<\/p>\n As four initial claimants in the domestic proceedings died, on various dates in 2009 the Zelenogradskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region declared Mr\u00a0Kolobutin, Mr Vlasov, Mr Toskuyev,and Ms\u00a0Moroz as legal successors in respect of the initial judgment debts in the domestic enforcement proceedings initiated pursuant to the above two judgments.<\/p>\n On 18\u00a0October 2017 the Government submitted their rectified unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.<\/p>\n In their declarations they acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments of 25\u00a0May 2004 and of 20\u00a0July 2004. The unilateral declarations further contained the dates of each judgment, their entry into force and their full enforcement, as well as the overall enforcement delays.<\/p>\n The authorities stated their readiness to pay to each applicant 4,000\u00a0euros as just satisfaction. The payments were to cover any pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay the sums within the said period, the Government undertook 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. The payments would constitute the final resolution of the case.<\/p>\n They further requested the Court to strike out the application.<\/p>\n In their letters received on the dates indicated in Appendix I, some of the applicants or their legal heirs informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government\u2019s declarations. Some of the applicants (see Appendix II) did not submit their comments on the unilateral declarations.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Locus standi<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court notes that MsKolobutina and Ms Markova died before the date of lodging of the present application (see Appendix I). The Court notes that a deceased person cannot, even through a representative, lodge an application with the Court (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.\u00a047848\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 96 and 102, ECHR 2014). The Court does not discern any exceptional circumstances in the present case to depart from this approach.<\/p>\n Therefore, the application in the part concerning MsKolobutina and Ms\u00a0Markova is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and the Additional Protocols and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n On the other hand, and as a matter of clarification, the Court notes that MrKolobutin and Ms Moroz entered the domestic enforcement proceedings as MsKolobutina\u2019sand Ms Markova\u2019s legal heirs, respectively, in respect of the judgment debts, which was acknowledged by the domestic decisions to that effect. Their standing as Ms\u00a0Kolobutina\u2019s and Ms Markova\u2019s legal successors in the domestic enforcement proceedings concerning the initial judgment debt transferred to them as a matter of legal succession has never been disputed either by the domestic authorities or the Government. Accordingly, the Court will examine the complaints lodged byMr\u00a0Kolobutin and Ms\u00a0Moroz in so far as their own claims in respect of the judgment debt inherited from their late relatives are concerned.<\/p>\n The Court further takes note ofMs\u00a0Vlasova\u2019s death and of the wish of her legal heir, Mr\u00a0Vlasov, to pursue the proceedings in her stead.<\/p>\n 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 Je\u010dius v. Lithuania, no. 34578\/97, \u00a7 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 8-9, 13 July 2006; and Horv\u00e1thov\u00e1 v.\u00a0Slovakia, no. 74456\/01, \u00a7 26, 17 May 2005). Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v.\u00a0the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071\/96, \u00a7 1, 12 July 2001). It follows from the submitted documents that the domestic courts admitted Mr\u00a0Vlasov in the enforcement proceedings in the capacity of creditor instead of his deceased relative. The Government did not contend that Mr\u00a0Vlasovhad no standing to pursue the application. Therefore, the Court considers that MrVlasov has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in Ms\u00a0Vlasova\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Complaints about the delayed enforcement<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0In respect of the applicants who agreed to the terms of the unilateral declarations<\/p>\n The Court attaches particular weight to the express agreement by applicants or their legal heirs listed in Appendix I to the terms of the declarations made by the Government. It finds that such agreement shall be considered as a friendly settlement between the parties (see\u00a0C\u0113snieks v.\u00a0Latvia\u00a0(dec.), no.\u00a09278\/06, \u00a7\u00a034, 6\u00a0March 2012, and Bakal and Others v.\u00a0Turkey\u00a0(dec.), no.\u00a08243\/08, 5\u00a0June 2012).<\/p>\n The Court therefore takes formal note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Court further considers that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 in fine of the Convention and Rule\u00a062\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n In any event the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the execution of the terms of the friendly settlement as set out in the present decision (Article\u00a039\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention and Rule\u00a043\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Rules of Court). Further, in any event the Court\u2019s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, the present application to its list of cases.<\/p>\n In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article\u00a039 of the Convention in so far as it concerns the applicants who had agreed to the terms of the unilateral declarations (listed in Appendix I).<\/p>\n The Court considers that the amounts proposed by the Government should be converted into the currency of the respondent Stateat the rate applicable on the date of payment.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In respect of the applicants who did not comment on the terms of the unilateral declarations<\/p>\n In respect of the applicants who did not comment on the Government\u2019s declarations (see Appendix II), the Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article.<\/p>\n It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.<\/p>\n Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n \u201c… for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine states:<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law.<\/p>\n The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of the judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour has been acknowledged by the Government. The Court also notes that the compensation amounts offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific enforcement delay in this particular case.<\/p>\n 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 application, it notes that in a number of analogous cases the Court found that it was not required to continue the examination the applications in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine (see Mikheyeva and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), nos. 36933\/07 and 6 others, 24 March 2015, and Sultanova and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 16200\/07 and 11 others, 15 April 2014). The Court does not see any reason to depart from that approach in the present cases.<\/p>\n In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike that part of the application out of the list in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention in so far as the non-enforcement complaint is concerned.<\/p>\n The Court considers that the amounts proposed by the Government should be converted into the currency of the respondent Stateat the rate applicable on the date of payment.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint about the lack of the domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaints<\/strong><\/p>\n Some applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaint. The Government did not specify their position in relation to this complaint.<\/p>\n The Court has previously found that it was not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article\u00a013 in other similar cases (see Kamneva and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 35555\/05 and 6 others, 2\u00a0May 2017, \u00a7\u00a7 33-37).<\/p>\n In these circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the complaints in the name ofMsKolobutina andMs\u00a0Markova inadmissible;<\/p>\n Decides that Mr\u00a0Vlasovhas standing to continue the proceedings in his late relative\u2019s stead, as specified in Appendix I;<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declarations;<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article\u00a039 of the Convention in so far as it concerns the applicants listed in Appendix I who had agreed to the terms of the unilateral declarations;<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention in the part concerning the applicants listed in Appendix II, and in so far as their non-enforcement complaint was concerned;<\/p>\n Decides that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 26 July 2018.<\/p>\n Fato\u015fArac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 BrankoLubarda <\/p>\n Appendix I<\/p>\n Date of birth \u2013 Date if demise<\/strong><\/p>\n Legal heir<\/strong><\/td>\n Enforcement delay<\/strong><\/td>\n 10\/07\/1933 \u2013 01\/12\/2007<\/td>\n 15\/05\/1966<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal heir of Anna Kuzminichna KOLOBUTINA in respect of the initial judgment debt<\/td>\n 8 years 5\u00a0months 7 days<\/td>\n 08\/02\/1951<\/td>\n 8 years 6\u00a0months<\/td>\n 27\/07\/1954<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 10\/04\/1957<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 26\/07\/1933 \u2013 23\/03\/2009<\/td>\n 01\/09\/1956<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal heir of UlyanaKonstantinovna MARKOVA in respect of the initial judgment debt<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 02\/05\/1943<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 21\/09\/1959<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 14\/07\/1966<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 08\/05\/1967<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 04\/08\/1967<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 18\/03\/1944<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n n\/a<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal heir:<\/u><\/p>\n Mikhail Ivanovich VLASOV<\/p>\n 23\/11\/1939<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 12\/08\/1942<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 24\/12\/1964<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n 09\/04\/1939<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n APPENDIX II<\/p>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Legal heir<\/strong><\/td>\n Enforcement delay<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 22\/11\/1949<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 19\/02\/1939<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 10\/11\/1928<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 11\/02\/1923<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 08\/04\/1966<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 06\/10\/1946<\/td>\n 8 years 6 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [1].\u00a0\u00a0MrToskuyev entered the enforcement proceedings in respect of the initial judgment debt as a legal successor of Svetlana AnatolyevnaToskuyeva, who died on an unspecified date before September 2009.<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n Enforcement date<\/strong><\/p>\n Date of receipt by the Court of the acceptance to the terms of the unilateral declaration<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n Anna Kuzminichna KOLOBUTINA<\/p>\n n\/a (see the Law part on Locus Standi)<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n AleksandrFailovich KOLOBUTIN<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 05\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n Lyudmila Vasilyevna KUZYAKINA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n Natalya Mikhaylovna ZHOKHOVA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 11\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n Tamara Andreyevna TOCHILKINA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 11\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n UlyanaKonstantinovna MARKOVA<\/p>\n n\/a (see the Law part on Locus Standi)<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n Larisa Mironovna MOROZ<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n Valentina Georgiyevna STREKACH<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n Nina Vilisovna IVANOVA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 11\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 10.<\/td>\n Yelena Nikolayevna GRIGORENKO<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 19\/01\/2018<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 11.<\/td>\n Yelena Alekseyevna NENASHEVA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 12.<\/td>\n Yelena Nikolayevna SMURYGINA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 18\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 13.<\/td>\n NadezhdaDmitriyevna KRAVCHENKO<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 11\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 14.<\/td>\n Valentina Gavrilovna VLASOVA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 11\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 15.<\/td>\n Nikolay Andreyevich GUMENYUK<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 16.<\/td>\n Yelena Yuryevna SOLOPCHUK<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 17.<\/td>\n Valentina Ivanovna TOKAREVA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n 20\/02\/2018<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n Enforcement date<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 1.<\/td>\n Svetlana Nikolayevna SEMCHUK<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n Irina Stepanovna NECHAY<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n Aleksandra Dmitriyevna ROMANOVA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n Lidiya Stepanovna ZHIGALINA<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n Yelena Petrovna SHENETS<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n Valentin Lazarevich TOSKUYEV[1]<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2012<\/p>\n