CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sA7CAEB5D { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA8D70776 { height:56.5pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 6586/07 Sergey Petrovich CHUMACHENKO against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22   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 the dates set out in the appendix, Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Gerasimov and Others v.   Russia (nos. 29920/05 and 10   others, §   218, 1   July 2014), Having regard to the declarations submitted by the Government and the applicants’ acceptance of their terms, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are five Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are 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, among other matters, about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour imposing various obligations in kind on domestic authorities and the lack of the effective remedies in respect of the non-enforcement complaint. Dates of the judgments, their entry into force and their full enforcement are set out in the appendix. In the wake of the pilot judgment, on various dates in December 2014 the applications were communicated to the Government (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§   230-31, and point   13 of the operative part). On the dates specified in the appendix the Government submitted unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In their declarations they acknowledged, in each case, the lengthy enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour. The unilateral declarations further contained, in each case, the dates of the judgment at issue, its entry into force and its full enforcement, as well as an overall enforcement delay. 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. They 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. In their letters received on the dates indicated in the appendix, 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 attaches particular weight to the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government. It finds that such agreement 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). The Court therefore takes formal note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Court further considers that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article   37   §   1 in fine of the Convention and Rule   62   §   3 of the Rules of Court). In any event the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the execution of the terms of the friendly settlement as set out in the present decision (Article   39   §   4 of the Convention and Rule   43   §   3 of the Rules of Court). Further, in any event the Court’s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article   37   §   2 of the Convention, the present applications to its list of cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. The Court considers that the amounts proposed by the Government should be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides, having regard to the terms of the Government’s declarations, and the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein, and the applicants’ acceptance of the terms of the declarations, 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 15 December 2016.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Representative Subject-matter Date of judgment Final on Enforcement date Enforcement delay Date of unilateral declaration Remedial offer (euros) Date of applicant’s letter in reply   6586/07 18/12/2006 Sergey Petrovich CHUMACHENKO 29/08/1958 Rostov-na-Donu   Housing 25/05/2006 12/07/2006   11/08/2009 3 years 30 days     08/12/2015   3,025 09/01/2016   32506/07 06/06/2007 Nadezhda Vladimirovna GORDEYEVA 14/12/1961 Kronshtadt, the Leningrad Region Rustem Abdullovich ZARBEYEV Housing 29/11/2016 15/12/2016 01/02/2012 5 years 1 month 17   days   09/12/2015   5,030 22/01/2016   59603/08 06/11/2008 Mukhomed Maksharipovich OZDOYEV 16/02/1961 Ordzhonikidzevskaya, the Republic of Ingushetia   Housing 25/06/2007 30/08/2007   07/12/2011 4 years 3 months 7   days 16/12/2015   4,190 20/01/2016   48750/10 20/08/2010 Yuriy Vladislavovich BELYAYEV 27/07/1965 Samara   An entry in the cadastral record 10/09/2009 20/09/2009 07/12/2011 2 years 2 months 17   days 18/01/2016   1,080 03/03/2016   54468/10 15/09/2010 Igor Zakharovich YEVTUSHENKO 27/04/1957 Moscow   Housing 31/07/2009 18/08/2009 03/10/2012 3 years 1 month 15   days 16/12/2015   3,060 20/01/2016