CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 septembre 2016

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s98AB28CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s62BA9D11 { width:191.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 13970/10 Aleksandr Grigoryevich SERPOKRYLOV against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications. The Government acknowledged the excessive length of pre-trial detention. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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 will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 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. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration Representative name and location Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [i]     13970/10 15/02/2010 Aleksandr Grigoryevich SERPOKRYLOV 10/01/1983     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 29/04/2016 01/07/2016 3,400     9409/11 25/01/2011 Vasiliy Grigoryevich BUDNOV 14/06/1984     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 02/02/2016 14/06/2016 2,500     19302/11 28/02/2011 Artem Sergeyevich LAPTEV 09/06/1988     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 22/01/2016 22/06/2016 1,650     59998/11 01/08/2011 Koba Anzoriyevich BREGVADZE 07/06/1977       03/02/2016 22/06/2016 1,600     66358/11 21/09/2011 Aleksandr Alekseyevich KIM 09/09/1958 Maklin Aleksandr Anatolyevich Tula   03/02/2016 22/06/2016 1,400     50818/13 19/07/2013 Gadzhiragim Gasan Ogly ASKEROV 06/11/1964       01/06/2016 01/08/2016 5,850     54158/13 24/07/2013 Magomedveli Masanovich EMINOV 02/02/1960       Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 03/02/2016 22/06/2016 3,200     74608/13 05/11/2013 Denis Aleksandrovich ANIKIN 27/02/1980 Shvechkova Natalya Aleksandrovna St Petersburg     01/06/2016 07/07/2016 2,050     78449/13 04/12/2013 Ivan Sergeyevich BELOUSOV 26/02/1987 Stavitskaya Anna Edvarovna Moscow   29/04/2016 04/07/2016 1,400   65943/14 19/09/2014 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KARABULIN 24/12/1980       27/05/2016 11/07/2016 4,600   [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.