BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SAPLENKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 8190/02)
JUDGMENT
(Striking
out)
STRASBOURG
12
April 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Saplenkov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni, judges,
and
Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 8190/02) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Vladimir Ivanovich
Saplenkov, on 23 July 2001.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the judgment in
his favour had not been enforced in good time.
- By
a decision of 23 March 2006, the Court declared the application
admissible and also joined it with other applications concerning the
same matter (nos. 75025/01, 75026/01, and others).
- The
applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the Rostov Region.
- On
28 July 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town
Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were
to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid
emoluments.
- In
2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
- On
13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour
and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according
to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of
3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the
above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims
relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town
Court approved the settlement.
- On
26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
- On
29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of
EUR 3,000 had been credited into his bank account.
THE LAW
- The
Court notes that the applicant's grievances stemmed from the fact
that a judgment in his favour had not been enforced in good time. It
appears, however, that in 2002 the amount due under the judgment was
paid to the applicant and that in 2006 he also received compensation
for the non-pecuniary damage incurred through the belated
enforcement.
- 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
...
(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 notes that the parties reached a settlement at domestic level.
The amount stipulated therein was reasonable as to quantum and it was
paid to the applicant without undue delay. In these circumstances,
the Court considers that the matter was resolved at the domestic
level (see Sarkisyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 20812/03, 2 March
2006).
- Furthermore,
the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in
the Convention and its Protocols does not require it at present to
continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in
fine).
- Accordingly,
the application should be disjoined and the case struck out of the
list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to disjoin the application;
- Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Loukis Loucaides
Registrar President
