Vitaliy Kazimirovich RUDNITSKIY and Others v Russia - 33509/04 [2011] ECHR 480 (8 March 2011)

Vitaliy Kazimirovich RUDNITSKIY and Others v Russia - 33509/04 [2011] ECHR 480 (8 March 2011)

The Court found that the Government acknowledged the excessive length of enforcement of judgments in favour of the applicants and offered compensation comparable to Court awards in similar cases. The Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications and that respect for human rights did not require further examination. The applications were therefore struck out of the list in respect of non-enforcement complaints, and the remainder declared inadmissible.

Citation
[2011] ECHR 480
Parties
Applicants: Vitaliy Kazimirovich Rudnitskiy and Others; Respondent: Russian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
08 March 2011
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Decision on Admissibility and Striking Out
Outcome
Applications joined; struck out in respect of non-enforcement complaints; remainder declared inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Delayed Enforcement of Judgments, Non Enforcement of Domestic Court Decisions, Right to a Fair Trial, Compensation for Non Pecuniary and Pecuniary Damage
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Delayed Enforcement of Judgments Non Enforcement of Domestic Court Decisions Right to a Fair Trial Compensation for Non Pecuniary and Pecuniary Damage

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 72
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vitaliy Kazimirovich Rudnitskiy and Others

Applicants

Russian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Decision on Admissibility and Striking Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delayed enforcement of domestic court judgments in favour of the applicants violated their rights under the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the Government's unilateral declarations and compensation offers provide adequate redress
  3. 3 Whether the applications should be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Government acknowledged the excessive length of enforcement of judgments in favour of the applicants and offered compensation comparable to Court awards in similar cases. The Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications and that respect for human rights did not require further examination. The applications were therefore struck out of the list in respect of non-enforcement complaints, and the remainder declared inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Applications joined; struck out in respect of non-enforcement complaints; remainder declared inadmissible.

Orders

  • Take note of the terms of the respondent Government's declarations.
  • Join the applications.