CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 novembre 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; 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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .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 } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 13840/11 Oleg Konstantinovich KOPTEV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   November 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on dates indicated in the Appendix, 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’ reply to those declarations, 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, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities. The applications were communicated to the Government. By letter dated 15 February 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention. They undertook to pay the applicants the amounts indicated in the Appendix to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The payment will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications. On 13 and 19 April and 6 May 2016, 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 considers that the applications should be joined and considered in a single decision. The Court finds that following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations 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 its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a 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 pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 8 December 2016.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Date of introduction Applicant Date of birth   The amount offered by the Government, euros   13840/11 09/02/2011 Oleg Konstantinovich KOPTEV 23/03/1960   3,960   28149/11 22/11/2011 Sergey Vladimirovich SOKOLOV 26/01/1968   6,000   44261/11 17/05/2011 Vladimir Viktorovich BRIL 14/12/1967   3,700