CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 avril 2017

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560FF069 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 4465/09 Vadim Vasilyevich TEREKHOV against Russia and 15 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   April 2017 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 Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the appendix. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr A. Fedorov, Head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation to the Court. 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 late 2014 and in 2016 the applications were communicated to the Government (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§   230 ‑ 31, and point   13 of the operative part). On 11 August 2016 Ms Grabilova, the daughter of the applicants in case no.   38248/09, informed the Court that both applicants had died. She expressed the wish to pursue the application in her capacity of the applicants’ heir. On 4 October 2016 Mr Pronin, the son of the applicant in case no.   20903/14, informed the Court that the applicant had died. He expressed the wish to pursue the application in his capacity of the applicant’s heir. 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 and the applicants’ heirs in cases nos. 38248/09 and 20903/14 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 and the applicants’ heirs in cases nos. 38248/09 and 20903/14 informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 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. B.     Locus standi as regards applications nos. 38248/09 and 20903/14 Ms Sakuta and Mr Sakuta, the applicants in case no.   38248/09, died on 12 December 2010 and 24   August 2012 respectively. On 11 August 2016 Ms Grabilova, their daughter, expressed her willing to pursue the application. On 20 February 2016 Ms Tsakunova, the applicant in case no. 20903/14, passed away. On 4 October 2016 Mr Pronin, her son, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings. The Court takes note of the death of the applicants in the above mentioned cases and of the wish of their legal heirs to pursue the proceedings. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; and Horváthová v. Slovakia , no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005). Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v.   the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). The Court received statements from Ms Grabilova and Mr Pronin that they had accepted the succession after their deceased parents. The Government did not contend that Ms Grabilova and Mr Pronin had no standing to pursue the cases. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicants’ heirs in the above mentioned cases have a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications. C.     Complaints about the delayed enforcement The Court attaches particular weight to the applicants’ and the heirs’ in cases nos. 38248/09 and 20903/14 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 that in respect of applications nos. 38248/09 and 20903/14, Ms   Svetlana Viktorovna Grabilova and Mr Vitaliy Nikolayevich Pronin have locus standi in the proceedings; 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’ and the heirs’ in cases nos.   38248/09 and 20903/14 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 18 May 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Representative Date of judgment Final on Enforcement date Enforcement delay as specified in the unilateral declaration Date of unilateral declaration Remedial offer (euros) Date of applicant’s letter in reply     4465/09 16/11/2009 Vadim Vasilyevich TEREKHOV 26/10/1963 Moscow     13/02/2008 27/02/2008 09/06/2009 1 year 3 months and 13   days   30/09/2016   800 29/11/2016     38248/09 19/06/2009 Viktor Vladimirovich SAKUTA 06/02/1953 Serpukhov (Deceased on 24/08/2012)   Galina Alekseyevna SAKUTA 29/07/1952 Serpukhov (Deceased on 19/12/2010)   Applicants’ heir Svetlana Viktorovna GRABILOVA   Igor Vladislavovich OGORODNIKOV 07/09/2007 18/09/2007 30/12/2009 2 years 3 months and 12 days 24/11/2016   2,240 17/01/2017     37056/10 12/05/2010 Sergey Vladimirovich BELOGUBOV 04/12/1961 Rostov-na-Donu     17/07/2008 04/08/2008 20/06/2012 3 years 10 months and 17 days 18/04/2016 (as rectified on 05/12/2016)   3,804 07/06/2016     65271/10 29/09/2010 Nikolay Mitrofanovich NOVICHIKHIN 06/08/1958 Moscow     30/11/2006 19/12/2006 29/11/2012 5 years 11 months and 10 days   16/12/2015   5,830   20/01/2016     69597/10 09/11/2010 Vladimir Vasilyevich ZHIGULIN 22/03/1961 Moscow     28/02/2006 16/03/2006 23/08/2013 7 years 5 months and 7   days   16/12/2015   6,500 21/01/2016     1693/11 02/12/2010   Sergey Vladimirovich BELYAYEV 21/11/1959 Moscow     30/05/2002 13/08/2002 23/11/2012 10 years 3 months and 10 days   16/12/2015   6,500 25/01/2016     7540/11 25/01/2011 Mikhail Veniaminovich SAPUNOV 14/11/1957 Khimki     14/11/2006 02/12/2006 26/07/2010 3 years 7 months and 24 days   16/12/2015   3,570 17/03/2016     12501/11 29/01/2011 Konstantin Olegovich PREOBRAZHENSKIY 14/12/1965 Moscow     26/02/2007 13/03/2007 26/11/2012 5 years 8 months and 13 days   16/12/2015   5,600 27/01/2016     12504/11 27/01/2011   Robert Farsiyevich VALIYEV 15/03/1956 Moscow     05/08/2004 24/08/2004 20/11/2012 8 years 2 months and 27 days   16/12/2015   6,500 26/01/2016   12507/11 29/01/2011 Mikhail Leonidovich SHMELEV 20/02/1963 Bronnitsy     12/08/2004 23/08/2004 21/03/2012 7 years 7 months and 27 days   16/12/2015   6,500 27/01/2016   18640/11 09/03/2011 Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZORIN 26/11/1980 Moscow     06/08/2009 25/08/2009 03/07/2013 3 years 10 months and 9 days   16/12/2015   3,780 25/01/2016   28029/11 09/04/2011 Dzhimsher Georgiyevich NATENADZE 01/09/1959 Gorodishche     26/03/2008 11/04/2008 27/08/2012 4 years 5 months   30/09/2016   4,290 21/11/2016   31065/11 05/05/2011 Vladimir Vladimirovich BUKHONTSOV 17/04/1960 Moscow     14/09/2009 01/10/2009 13/03/2013 3 years 5 months and 12 days 16/12/2015   3,380 28/01/2016   31398/11 28/04/2011 Vladimir Dmitriyevich VLASOV 18/04/1953 Moscow     14/04/2009 25/04/2009 24/04/2013 3 years 11 months and 30 days   16/12/2015   3,920 20/01/2016   34994/11 08/04/2011 Yuriy Borisovich MOKLYAK 12/03/1961 Moscow   Leonid Anatolyevich CHERNYSHOV 23/12/2009 11/01/2010 15/05/2013 3 years 4 months and 4   days   16/12/2015   3,270 09/02/2016   20903/14 26/03/2014 Valentina Petrovna TSAKUNOVA 17/01/1950 Khabarovsk (Deceased on 20/02/2016)   Applicant’s heir Vitaliy Nikolayevich PRONIN     13/09/2007 28/11/2007 29/10/2015 7 years 11 months 1   day 20/12/2016   6,000 21/02/2017