CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 décembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8AB83B9 { width:147.82pt; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s21254B8D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-before:always; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s69A59588 { width:200.09pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 24408/02 by Sergey Nikolayevich PROKUDIN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič, President,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mr   C. Bîrsan,   Mr   A. Kovler,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan,   Mr   E. Myjer,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson, judges, and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 May 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Prokudin, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Kemerovo. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were 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. On 1 June 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Kemerovo accepted the applicant’s action against the Kemerovo Regional Administration for payment of child benefits and awarded him 790.85 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 32 euros). The judgment became final and enforceable on 30   August 2001 when the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld it on appeal. On 25 November 2003 the Leninskiy District bailiffs’ service credited RUR 790.85 to the applicant’s account. COMPLAINT   The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 1   June 2001. THE LAW On 17 October 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 30 December 2005 the Government’s observations were received. They invited the Court to strike out the application, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention because the applicant no longer intended to pursue his application. The Government enclosed a copy of the declaration addressed to the European Court of Human Rights and signed by the applicant on 30 November 2005. The relevant part of the declaration, as translated from Russian, read as follows: “I ask [the Court] to discontinue adjudication of my application no. 24408/02 “Prokudin against the Russian Federation” because I secured a friendly settlement with the Administration of the Kemerovo Region as regards this issue.” On 18 January 2006 the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant. The Court asked him to submit written observations in reply by 8 March 2006. On 28 February 2006 the applicant submitted his observations. He asked the Court to disregard his written declaration of 30 November 2005 because the Kemerovo Regional administration had intimidated him with the view to securing the friendly settlement. Moreover, the applicant averred that he expected to receive a bigger award than the one paid under the friendly settlement if the Court establishes a violation of his rights due to the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 1 June 2001. The applicant’s observations were forwarded to the Government. On 5 May 2006 the Government submitted further observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. They commented that on 3   November 2005 the applicant had had a meeting with representatives of the Kemerovo Regional Administration. They had discussed terms of the possible friendly settlement. Almost a month later the applicant had agreed to sign the friendly settlement agreement and on 30 November 2005 he had signed the declaration. No pressure had been applied. He had not been threatened or intimidated. Under the friendly settlement the Kemerovo Regional Administration had paid the applicant RUR 1,000 (approximately EUR 30) in compensation for inflation losses during the period of the non-enforcement of the judgment award. The Administration had also undertaken to pay for medical treatment and holidays of the applicant’s daughter twice a year. The Government provided the Court with copies of financial documents confirming the payment and the Administration’s undertaking. They also enclosed a detailed calculation showing that the inflation losses on the judgment award in the applicant’s case amounted to RUR 491.54 (approximately EUR 15) during the period of the non-enforcement. The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or (b)     the matter has been resolved; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” The Court observes that it has already on a number of occasions examined similar factual background and legal issues as in the present case and decided to strike applications out of its lists of cases under Article 37 §   1 (see Lipatova v. Russia (dec.), no. 14827/03, 19 October 2006, and Yaurov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 33492/04, 16 November 2006). The Court does not see any reason to depart from its findings in the present case. The Court takes note of the settlement reached between the parties. Furthermore, it observes that the applicant did not contest the authenticity of the agreement and the declaration of 30   November 2005. The Court also sees no reason to conclude that the applicant signed the agreement against his will. He had almost a month (between the first meeting with the representatives of the Regional Administration and signing of the settlement) for thinking over and negotiating the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, the Court does not find any ground to doubt the validity of the settlement reached by the parties and, thus, it considers that the matter was resolved at the domestic level (see Yaurov and Others , cited above). The Court further reiterates that in cases in which it is possible to eliminate the effects of an alleged violation and the Government declare their readiness to do so, the intended redress is more likely to be regarded as appropriate for the purposes of striking out the application, the Court, as always, retaining its power to restore the application to its list as provided in Article   37 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 5 of the Rules of Court (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §   76 in fine, ECHR 2004 ‑ III). Accordingly, being satisfied that the settlement in the present case is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, the Court finds no reason of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article.   Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Boštjan M. Zupančič   Registrar   President