CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 janvier 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE2E9CAA4 { margin-left:43.7pt; border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 60744/08 and 65419/09 Nikolay Yevgenyevich PTITSYN against Russia and Sergey Fedorovich KARKISHCHENKO against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27   January 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 30 September 2008 and 24 November 2009 respectively, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 16 and 19 October 2012 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant in the first case, Mr Nikolay Yevgenyevich Ptitsyn, is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Ivanovo. He was represented before the Court by Ms I.Ye. Sokolova, a lawyer practising in Ivanovo. The applicant in the second case, Mr Sergey Fedorovich Karkishchenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Saint-Petersburg. 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 applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. The applicant in the case no.   65419/09 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of effective domestic remedies against the delayed enforcement of the judgment in his favour. The applications were communicated to the Government. By their letters dated 16 and 19 October 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of judgments in the applicants’ favour. By their declaration of 19 October 2012 they undertook to pay Mr   Ptitsyn a sum of   6,500 euros (EUR) as a compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage and 20,000 roubles (RUB) as a compensation for legal services of a lawyer, RUB   3,770 roubles for translation and RUB   890.64 – for postal expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts. By their declaration of 16   October 2012 they undertook to pay Mr   Karkishchenko a sum of EUR   1080 as just satisfaction, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. On 26 November 2012 the Court received a letter from Mr   Karkishchenko   and on 31   January 2014 – from Mr   Ptitsyn. In those letters the applicants informed the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. THE LAW Having regard to the similarity of the issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision. A.     Complaints about the length of proceedings The Court finds that following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties.   In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court considers that Article   37 §   1   (b) is applicable in the present case in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned. Accordingly, that part of applications should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. B.     Complaint of lack of an effective domestic remedy The applicant in the case no.   65419/09 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings. The Government did not specify their position in relation to this complaint. The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduced by the federal laws № 68-FZ and № 69-FZ on 4 May 2010 in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009). On 23 September 2010 the Court decided that all new cases introduced after the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment, cited above, and falling within the scope of the new domestic remedy had to be submitted in the first place to the national courts (see Fakhretdinov and Others , cited above, §   32). The Court also stated that its position may be subject to review in the future, depending in particular on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent practice under the new law in line with the Convention requirements (ibid, § 33). Finally, the Court notes that the applicant was in principle enabled to claim compensation under the transitional provisions of the new law and that he will in any event receive pecuniary compensation in respect of his grievances in accordance with the Government’s declarations examined above. Having regard to these special circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to continue a separate examination of the complaint under Article   13 in the present case (see, Zemlyanskiy and Others v.   Russia (dec.) , nos. 18969/06 et al., 13 March 2012 and Pobudilina and Others v.   Russia (dec.) , nos. 7142/05 et al., 29 March 2011). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases pursuant to Article   37 § 1 (b) of the Convention in so far as it relates to the complaint about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour; Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaint of lack of an effective remedy. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 February 2015. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX     No Application number, date of lodging Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Name of the court Date of the judgment Judgment became final on Enforcement status, delay in enforcement Unilateral remedial offer   60744/08 30/09/2008 Nikolay Yevgenyevich PTITSYN 09/05/1965 Ivanovo   Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo 08/12/1999 25/01/2000 Enforced on 02/11/2009 9 years 9 months EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) RUB 24,660.64 (pecuniary damage)   65419/09 24/11/2009   Sergey Fedorovich KARKISHCHENKO 25/11/1978 St. Petersburg   St. Petersburg Military Court 07/05/2009 22/06/2009 Enforced on 30/07/2010 1 year 1 month EUR 1.080