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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Mikhail Mikhaylovich RUSINOV v Russia - 588/05 [2010] ECHR 206 (21 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/206.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 206 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
588/05
by Mikhail Mikhaylovich RUSINOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 November 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Mikhaylovich Rusinov, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Novovoronezh. 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.
The applicant was successful in six rounds of the civil proceedings against the Welfare Office of the Novovoronezh Town Council (“the Welfare Office”). The final judgments by the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region, the amounts awarded to the applicant and the enforcement dates in respect of these judgments are as follows:
|
Date of the judgment |
Amount awarded (Russian Roubles) |
Judgment became final on |
Date of execution |
|
27 March 2003 |
17,419.61 |
8 July 2003 |
17 December 2004 |
|
4 March 2004 |
20,621.23 |
15 March 2004 |
23 November 2005 |
|
16 March 2004 |
4973.57 |
26 March 2004 |
9 November 2006 |
|
20 May 2004 |
5,972.29 monthly, 10,009.80 (lump sum) |
31 May 2004 |
Lump sum paid on 25 November 2005 |
|
26 August 2004 |
2,911.65 (one-time), 1,132.97 yearly, 679.78 monthly |
6 September 2004 |
9 November 2006 |
|
29 September 2004 |
13,346.40 |
11 October 2004 |
25 November 2005 |
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 thereto about non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour.
THE LAW
On 17 December 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“The authorities of the Russian Federation and the applicant, Mr Mikhail Mikhaylovich Rusinov, application no. 588/05, now reached the following settlement [ ...]: (a) due to humanitarian considerations and interests of respect of human rights, the authorities of the Russian Federation will pay to the applicant the sum of 2,300 (two thousand three hundred) euros. It will be payable within three months after the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention. The authorities of Russian Federation also guarantee to reimburse the sums of taxes that the applicant will pay when she will receive the sum. [...] (b) The applicant declares that, subject to the fulfilment of what is stated under (a), she has no further claims against the Russian Federation based on the facts of the application filed by her with the European Court of Human Rights.”
On 11 January 2009 the Court received the same declaration signed by the applicant.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President