Lidiya Sergeyevna LUNINA and Others v Russia - 7120/03 [2011] ECHR 154 (13 January 2011)

Lidiya Sergeyevna LUNINA and Others v Russia - 7120/03 [2011] ECHR 154 (13 January 2011)

The Court found that the Government's acknowledgment of delayed enforcement and the compensation offered were adequate and comparable to awards in similar cases. For Ms Grigorenko, the delay was attributable to her own actions, not the State. The Court concluded it was no longer justified to continue examination of the applications regarding delayed enforcement, and respect for human rights did not require further examination. Other complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

Citation
[2011] ECHR 154
Parties
Applicants: Lidiya Sergeyevna Lunina and Others; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
13 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Applications joined; complaint of non-enforcement by Ms L. Grigorenko declared inadmissible; other applications struck out as resolved; remainder declared inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Delayed Enforcement of Judgments, Right to a Fair Trial, Non Enforcement of Domestic Judgments, Locus Standi of Successors
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Delayed Enforcement of Judgments Right to a Fair Trial Non Enforcement of Domestic Judgments Locus Standi of Successors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lidiya Sergeyevna Lunina and Others

Applicants

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delayed enforcement of domestic judgments in favour of the applicants violated the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether successors of deceased applicants have standing to pursue the applications
  3. 3 Whether the Government's unilateral declarations and compensation offers are adequate redress under the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Government's acknowledgment of delayed enforcement and the compensation offered were adequate and comparable to awards in similar cases. For Ms Grigorenko, the delay was attributable to her own actions, not the State. The Court concluded it was no longer justified to continue examination of the applications regarding delayed enforcement, and respect for human rights did not require further examination. Other complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

Court Disposition

Applications joined; complaint of non-enforcement by Ms L. Grigorenko declared inadmissible; other applications struck out as resolved; remainder declared inadmissible.

Orders

  • Applications joined
  • Complaint of non-enforcement by Ms L. Grigorenko declared inadmissible