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 } .sE0190968 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .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 } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10067/04 Viktor Mikhailovich VETROV against Russia and 12 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. On 27 March 2011 Ms Kostromitina, an applicant in case no. 17650/07, died. On 2 March 2012 her daughter, Ms Giyesova, also an applicant in the case, expressed her willing to participate in the proceedings before the Court in her mother’s stead. On various dates 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. In case no.   39912/05 the Government specified separately an amount in euros they offered in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and an amount in Russian roubles as a reimbursement for postage (see the appendix). 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 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 application no. 17650/07 The Court takes note of Ms Kostromitina’s death and of the wish of Ms   Giyesova 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 Government did not contend that Ms Giyesova had no standing to pursue the case. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicant’s daughter has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application. C.     Complaints about the delayed enforcement 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. D.     Other complaints Some of the applicants raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that the applications in this part are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides that in respect of application no.   17650/07, Ms   Yelena Yevgenyevna Giyesova has standing to continue the proceedings in Ms   Lyubov Fedorovna Kostromitina’s stead; 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 in respect of the complaints about the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgments; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   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   10067/04 11/02/2004 Viktor Mikhailovich VETROV 11/08/1954 Barnaul     15/12/2000 15/12/2000 22/12/2004 4 years 7   days   09/06/2016   3,940 02/08/2016   8241/05 19/01/2005 Vera Petrovna NAVESOVA 01/03/1952 Ulan-Ude   Olga Petrovna SAFONOVA 10/12/1998 25/05/1999   31/01/2002 10/02/2002     22/11/2010 11 years 5   months and 28 days   29/09/2016   6,500 14/11/2016   39912/05 25/09/2005 Vladimir Nikolayevich MASIN 10/06/1958 Petrozavodsk     23/03/2005 19/05/2005 29/12/2010 5 years 7   months and 10 days 19/10/2012   5,500 and 218.1 Russian roubles   26/03/2015   1244/06 24/11/2005 Sergey Vitalyevich MELNIKOV 04/07/1954 Moscow   Leonid Anatolyevich CHERNYSHOV 17/11/2005 06/12/2005 08/05/2007 1 year 5   months and 2 days 29/09/2016   1,390 03/01/2017   6587/06 01/02/2006 Gennadiy Nikandrovich KUNITSKIY 26/05/1955 Balashov     16/12/2004 28/12/2004 29/05/2006 1 year 5   months and 1 day 09/06/2016   1,390 08/09/2016   13537/06 08/02/2006 Aleksandr Grigoryevich LABYTSIN 02/12/1952 Golovenki   Ivan Rimmovich MEDVEDEV 24/04/2003 12/05/2003 06/02/2008 4 years 8   months and 25 days   09/06/2016   4,650 04/08/2016   35571/06 15/07/2006 Leonid Yakovlevich ZHELEZNYAKOV 09/10/1940 Tuapse   Larisa Mikhaylovna ZHELEZNYAKOVA 17/09/1945 Tuapse     13/02/2001 26/02/2001 18/01/2007 5 years 10   months and 23 days 28/07/2016   3,710 (jointly) 21/09/2016   40917/06 07/08/2006 Sergey Yuryevich ABRAMOV 05/12/1957 Kostroma     28/01/2002 12/02/2002 29/04/2008 6 years 2   months and 17 days   15/06/2016   6,092 28/07/2016   49281/06 23/11/2006 Renat Rustamovich AKHMETZYANOV 17/07/1976 Moscow     06/04/2006 07/06/2006 11/06/2008 2 years and 4   days 29/09/2016   1,970 14/12/2016     13869/07 19/03/2007 Liya Faritovna ZIYAZOVA 02/01/1957 Yekaterinburg   Elza Fanisovna MEZENTSEVA 09/08/1985 Yekaterinburg   Liana Fanisovna YAKIMOVA 29/04/1978 Yekaterinburg   Yevgeniy Nikolayevich YAKIMOV 11/06/1972 Yekaterinburg   Elvira Aleksandrovna GERBEL 07/07/2006 05/09/2006 09/06/2008 1 year 9   months and 4 days   29/09/2016   1,729 (jointly) 09/12/2016   17650/07 19/03/2007 Lyubov Fedorovna KOSTROMITINA 22/09/1959 (Deceased on 27/03/2011) Yekaterinburg   Yevgeniy Nikolayevich KOSTROMITIN 24/01/1960 Yekaterinburg   Yelena Yevgenyevna GIYESOVA 11/09/1982 Yekaterinburg (Acting also as an heir of KOSTROMITINA L.F.)   Sergey Yevgenyevich KOSTROMITIN 02/11/1985 Yekaterinburg   Elvira Aleksandrovna GERBEL 07/07/2006 05/09/2006 Summer 2008 2 years 30/09/2016   1,800 (jointly) 09/12/2016     23145/07 13/03/2007 Nikolay Nikolayevich UGLYANITSA 25/03/1949 St Petersburg   Rustem Abdullovich ZARBEYEV 17/04/2006 01/06/2006 16/10/2009 3 years 4   months and 15 days   28/07/2016   3,310 26/08/2016   36291/07 25/06/2007 Igor Leonidovich MULTAN 17/12/1964 St Petersburg     09/03/2006 22/08/2006 16/12/2008 2 years 3   months and 24 days   29/09/2016   2,270 10/01/2017