FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36280/05
by Oleg Nikolayevich LEONOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Nina Vajić,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Elisabeth Steiner,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Giorgio Malinverni,
	George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 February 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov (no. 2) v. Russia (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009-...),
Having regard to the declaration by the respondent Government dated 13 July 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Oleg Nikolayevich Leonov, is a Russian national who was born and lives in Belaya Kalitva, Rostov Region. He was represented before the Court by Ms V.V. Leonidchenko, a lawyer practising in the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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.
On 1 July 2004 the Belaya Kalitva Town Court of Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) ordered the local authorities to provide the applicant with housing. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court and became final and enforceable on 6 September 2004. The applicant was provided with a flat in Belaya Kalitva in January 2006.
On 1 March 2006 the Town Court (as clarified by the Town Court on 27 April 2006) awarded the applicant 286,918.82 Russian roubles (RUB) (then approximately EUR 8,198) in arrears and RUB 12,821 (then approximately EUR 366) in monthly payments. That judgment, which became final and enforceable on 10 May 2006, was enforced in November 2007.
On 24 July 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 32,653.57 (then approximately EUR 933) in arrears, RUR 1,308.14 (then approximately EUR 37) in monthly payments and RUR 2,180.26 (then approximately EUR 62) in yearly payments. That judgment, which became final and enforceable on 4 August 2006, was enforced in August 2007.
On 19 December 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 148,781.66 (then approximately EUR 4,251) in arrears. That judgment, which became final and enforceable on 9 January 2007, was enforced on 12 December 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments in his favour.
The applicant also alleged a violation of Article 14 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.  Following the pilot judgment in Burdov (no. 2), cited above, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration dated 13 July 2010. They acknowledged that the final and enforceable judgments of 1 March 2006 and 24 July 2006 in the applicant’s favour were not enforced in a timely manner. They also declared their intention to pay the applicant ex gratia a sum of EUR 1,200 as just satisfaction in this respect. They further invited the Court to strike the present case out of the Court’s list of cases. The remainder of their declaration read as follows:
“The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 [Convention]. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it 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.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case”.
In a letter of 23 August 2010 the applicant agreed with the sum proposed in the Government’s declaration.
The Court reiterates that under Article 37 § 1 (c) it is empowered 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”.
The Court recalls that it ordered the Russian Federation to grant redress to all victims of non-payment or unreasonably delayed payment by State authorities of a judgment debt in their favour who had lodged their applications with the Court before 15 January 2009 (Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 144-145).
Having examined the terms of the Government’s declaration, the Court understands it as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment.
The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the enforcement of the final judgments of 1 March and 24 July 2006 in the applicant’s favour is acknowledged by the Government. It also notes that the compensation offered is comparable with Court awards in similar cases.
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application; it is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue the examination of the present application (see, for the same conclusion in similar circumstances, Sobol and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 11373/03 et al., 24 June 2010).
Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about delayed enforcement of the Town Court’s judgments of 1 March and 24 July 2006 in the applicant’s favour are concerned, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. In any event the Court’s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the present application to its list of cases (see Sobol and Others, cited above).
2.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments of 1 July 2004 and 19 December 2006 in his favour. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] tribunal...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural ... person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible because of the reasonableness of the period of enforcement. The applicant did not comment.
The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 66).
The Court notes that the judgment of 1 July 2004 in the applicant’s favour became final and enforceable on 6 September 2004 and was enforced in January 2006, that is a year and four months thereafter. Taking into account that that judgment concerned non-monetary relief, namely provision of the applicant with housing, and being mindful of the absence of disagreement between the parties on this matter, the Court does not consider this period incompatible with the requirements of the Convention.
The Court notes that the judgment of 19 December 2006 in the applicant’s favour became final and enforceable on 9 January 2007 and was enforced on 12 December 2007, that is slightly over eleven months thereafter. As the period of enforcement was less than one year and in absence of any specific circumstances the Court considers that this period complied with the requirements of the Convention (see Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009).
It follows that the complaint about delayed enforcement of the Town Court’s judgments of 1 July 2004 and 19 December 2006 in the applicant’s favour is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3.  Finally, the applicant alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention. In the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence the Court finds that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Convention and Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as complaint about delayed enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments of 1 March 2006 and 24 July 2006 in the applicant’s favour is concerned;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis
	Registrar	President