CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC95ED60 { width:188.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s1B5E5BBA { width:7.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s74383789 { width:27.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB11D8F64 { width:10.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6BD57774 { width:23.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD916C7E7 { width:30.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD604ECD3 { width:7.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s48159022 { width:27.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC06DC1C { width:10.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEC0AA111 { width:23.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DC73ED2 { width:30.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10139/13 Danil Nikolayevich PANKOV and others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1   March 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 January 2013, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 30 October 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants and their representatives are listed in the Appendix. All the applicants are Russian nationals who had lived in St   Petersburg prior to their arrest. 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 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in a correctional facility. The application was communicated to the Government. By a letter dated 30   October 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article   3 of the Convention. They undertook to pay the applicants the amounts listed in the Appendix to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, as well as any tax that may be chargeable. The payment would be effected within a period of three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay within that period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case. They further requested the Court to strike out the application. On 31 December 2015 the Court received letters from the applicants informing the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. THE LAW The Court finds that following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore 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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 24 March 2016.   Marialena Tsirli   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Name Birth year Representative The Government’s offer, euros 1 Danil Nikolayevich PANKOV 1979   S. Kotelnikov 12,800 2 Kirill Igorevich DERZHAVETS 1970   S. Kotelnikov 6,550 3 Dmitriy Yuryevich TATARINOV 1982   M. Belinskaya 14,500