CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 avril 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 } .sA199A974 { width:198.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no 25198/09 Nina Sergeyevna KOSTINA against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26   April 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helen Keller, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 25 September 2015 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ acceptance of their terms, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained, in particular, under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the lengthy enforcement of judgements in their favour and the inability to obtain compensation in this respect in the domestic proceedings in accordance with the new Compensation Act (in force since 4   May 2010). The applications were communicated to the Government. On 25 September 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In each case, the Russian authorities acknowledged “the violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Convention”. They specified, in each declaration, the exact period of delay in enforcement of the relevant judgement in the applicant’s favour. The authorities stated their readiness to pay to the applicants the sums listed in the Appendix as just satisfaction. The payments were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay the sums within the said period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 payments would constitute the final resolution of the cases. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications. In their letters received on 18 and 23 November 2015, and on 5   January 2016, the applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. THE LAW Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision. The Court considers that in each case the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government shall be considered as a friendly settlement between the parties (see Cēsnieks v.   Latvia (dec.), no.   9278/06, §   34, 6 March 2012, and Bakal and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no.   8243/08, 5   June 2012). It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in each case. It is satisfied that the settlements are 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 applications. The Court’s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, any of the applications to the list of cases (see E.G. v. Poland and 175 other Bug River applications (dec.), no. 50425/99, §   29, ECHR 2008 (extracts)). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. 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   39 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2016. Stephen Phillips   Helen Keller   Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Compensation offered   25198/09 20/04/2009 Nina Sergeyevna KOSTINA 20/03/1949 Voronezh   Represented by: Ilya Vladimirovich SIVOLDAYEV EUR 1,901.28 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,000 (non ‑ pecuniary damage)   43493/11 10/05/2011 Vladimir Aleksandrovich POUKH 24/05/1966 St Petersburg   Represented by: Rustem Abdullovich ZARBEYEV EUR 6,500   71445/11 22/09/2011 Taymuraz Yuryevich BAYEV 27/10/1969 Оlginskoye   Represented by: Taisiya Islamovna BASKAYEVA EUR 817