FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 16585/03 
by Viktor Sergeyevich VASENKIN 
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President
 Mr L. Loucaides
 Mrs F. Tulkens
 Mrs N. Vajić
 Mr A. Kovler
 Mr D. Spielmann, 
 Mr S.E. Jebens, judges
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 January 2002,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Viktor Sergeyevich Vasenkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Kalininsk, the Saratov Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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.

In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In 1993 the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between the applicant’s poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded compensation to be paid monthly.

1.      Proceedings related to a delay in compensation

In 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of the town of Kalininsk of the Saratov Region (Управление социальной защиты населения г. Калининска Саратовской области) for recovery of penalties for the delays in payment of compensation.

On 8 June 1999 the Kalininskiy District Court of the Saratov Region granted his claim and awarded him RUR 40, 000 (approximately EUR 1,142).

On 28 July 1999 the Saratov Regional Court examined the case on appeal and reduced the amount of penalties to RUR 10, 000 (approximately EUR 285). On the same date the decision entered into force.

By the letter of 5 August 2005 the applicant informed the Court that the decision of 28 July 1999 had been enforced in April 2002, i.e. in two years and eight months after it became final.

2.      Proceedings related to recalculation of monthly compensation

In 2001 the applicant brought new proceedings against the Welfare Office of the town of Kalininsk of the Saratov Region (Управление социальной защиты населения г. Калининска Саратовской области). He claimed the recalculation of the monthly compensation.

On 25 May 2001 the Kaliniskiy District Court of the Saratov Region adjourned the proceedings because the issue concerning the recalculation of the compensation to the participants of the emergency operations in Chernobyl was pending before the Constitutional Court.

On 20 June 2001 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal.

On 19 June 2002 the Constitutional Court examined the request of the Supreme Court concerning the recalculation of the compensations for the participants of the emergency operations in Chernobyl.

On 16 September 2002 the Kalininskiy District Court of the Saratov Region granted in part the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUR 4,864 to be paid monthly, ordered that the payments be index-linked and awarded RUR 287, 274 in compensation.

On 16 October 2002 the Saratov Regional Court quashed the part of the judgment concerning the payment of monthly allowances and their indexation and reduced the amount of compensation to RUR 116, 376.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the judgment of the Saratov Regional Court of 28 July 1999.

2. He complained under Article 13 about the adjournment of the examination of his case related to the recalculation of monthly payments pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

3. He complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about the refusal of the domestic courts to index-link the monthly allowances.

THE LAW

By the letter of 22 May 2006 the applicant informed the Court that on 28 March 2006 the parties had concluded a friendly settlement agreement by which he had been paid EUR 3,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the lengthy non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour. He informed the Court that he had waived any further claims against Russia in respect of the facts of the present application.

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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck 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

VASENKIN v. RUSSIA DECISION


VASENKIN v. RUSSIA DECISION